I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.
As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs. I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange. As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 14, 2016, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.
As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs. I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange. As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.
Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 14, 2016, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.
As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs. I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange. As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.
Do you have the link to the Southeast Roads on Facebook, or what is the name of the group so I can look it up?
That's the name of the group.
Quote from: froggie on July 15, 2016, 01:30:51 PM
That's the name of the group.
Found it. Thank you, froggie.
While I don't think I-87 will ever come to VA, I thought I'd post this here since it's an improvement to the proposed corridor:
I drove through the construction site for the US-17 / Dominion Blvd freeway upgrade on my way home from work yesterday and took a few photos, heading northbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julyf.png&hash=5c369493359fabec52b6f6171ddbeb77163c71e6)
Eaglet Pkwy to Scenic Pkwy: Asphalt for the future NB lanes has recently been laid down, while traffic still uses the original roadbed. Some guardrails have been installed, but overall not much progress. This will likely be the last section to be completed.
Scenic Pkwy to VA-165: Traffic shifts over to the new roadbed just past past Scenic Pkwy while the old set is rehabbed. This section seems close to completion, with the SB lanes sporting what appeared to be a decently driveable surface.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julya.png&hash=24d823ddffe74583aca1b36dc2721d5199c3942d)
VA-165 Interchange: The future northbound half is complete, with SB traffic using the new bridge while NB traffic is forced to use the (fairly short) exit ramps. The southbound portion looks close to being done, with some missing guard rails and some scaffolding around the bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julyb.png&hash=a542955f9eb2ff02c0afa19e8c9f7f1fae24ced1)
Veterans' Bridge: NB half completed and open to traffic. SB half stretches about 85% of the way across the river, with a gap in the middle. This portion also seems like it will take awhile to complete. The cameras for the toll gantry have been installed, but are not operational. You also have this cramped BGS with distances put in exit tabs, which is a bit weird. (It also has a twin heading southbound).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julyc.png&hash=787bd14ebe102380dd09e1f068c2f148faca2b38)
Veterans' Bridge to VA-166: Largely an extension of the bridge. SB lanes are completed, won't be open until bridge is finished. VA-190 absent from this BGS for whatever reason.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julyd.png&hash=df35ae0d9fa8310e430f562f5769b6843de6a850)
VA-166 Interchange: Completed, with both bridges open to traffic, yet restricted to only one lane for some reason.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julye.png&hash=7653b6f213898af708f13229d48f0053a4188f0e)
VA-166 to VA-190: Both sets of lanes are complete, yet with a 35 mph speed limit and the southbound set restricted to 1 lane for some reason.
VA-190 interchange: Lots of work going on here. Mainline bridges are complete, but likely not open due to the unfinished state of the ramp approaches.
Thanks for the pics! Looks like it's coming along pretty good. I agree that it's unlikely I-87 will ever leave NC since VA (except for Hampton Roads) isn't supporting it like NC is. However, VA does have one piece of what could be I-87 already finished should they ever decide to use it to add to the corridor: I-464.
When is the US-17/Dominion Blvd project supposed to be finished by?
Quote from: LM117 on July 15, 2016, 06:04:58 PM
Thanks for the pics! Looks like it's coming along pretty good. I agree that it's unlikely I-87 will ever leave NC since VA (except for Hampton Roads) isn't supporting it like NC is. However, VA does have one piece of what could be I-87 already finished should they ever decide to use it to add to the corridor: I-464.
When is the US-17/Dominion Blvd project supposed to be finished by?
The portion north of Grassfield Pkwy is running ahead of schedule and will be finished by the end of the year, according to the project site (the official date is April 2017). The portion south of there is a separate project and has no listed completion date, but I'd imagine that it'll be completed by this time next year at the very latest.
As I did with I-42, I've created a preliminary I-87 NC exit list with milepost and exit information for current freeway sections of the corridor gathered from Wikipedia entries and traveling the corridor via GSV. The list can be accessed at:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i87exits.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i87exits.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on July 16, 2016, 12:58:00 PM
As I did with I-42, I've created a preliminary I-87 NC exit list with milepost and exit information for current freeway sections of the corridor gathered from Wikipedia entries and traveling the corridor via GSV. The list can be accessed at:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i87exits.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i87exits.html)
Neat!
Some of you have been wondering if I-440 will be decommissioned when I-87 routing is complete... I have been too, but then I realized that I do not think they are going to decommission I-440 because it does not make sense to end I-440 at I-87 2 miles away from I-40 interchange.
Here is the exit numbers for I-440 from I-40 to future I-87:
Exit 16- I-40
Exit 15- Poole Rd.
Exit 14- I-495/US 64/US 264 East (future I-87 North)
As you see, I-87 meets I-440 2 miles from I-40 interchange, I predict that I-440 will stay, which means I-87 will multiplex with I-440 and then both routes will end at I-40. Similar multiplexes that end at or close to the parent route:
1. I-26/I-240 in Asheville, I-26 meets I-240 4 miles north of I-40 interchange, and runs with it until the western I-40 interchange, and I-240 ends (and begins) there while I-26 continues past the interchange. (I-240 isn't going to be decommissioned)
2. I-73/I-840 in Greensboro. I-73 meets I-840 at Exit 3 (I-840's exit number) and both routes run down to western I-40 interchange, while I-840 ends there, I-73 continues past of the interchange.
3. I-785/I-840 in Greensboro (future), I-785 meets I-840 at Exit 14 (future exit) around 7 miles from eastern I-40 interchange and both routes run down to I-40/I-85/Bus. 85 interchange. Both routes end there.
4. I-41/I-43/I-894 in Wisconsin. I-894 ends at I-94 interchange in both termini, while I-41 and I-43 continues past the interchange.
So that is why I don't think NCDOT will decommission I-440 (it won't make any sense). They will just pair it with I-87 and have both routes end at I-40 eastern interchange.
Quote from: Strider on July 16, 2016, 05:10:59 PM
Some of you have been wondering if I-440 will be decommissioned when I-87 routing is complete... I have been too, but then I realized that I do not think they are going to decommission I-440 because it does not make sense to end I-440 at I-87 2 miles away from I-40 interchange.
Here is the exit numbers for I-440 from I-40 to future I-87:
Exit 16- I-40
Exit 15- Poole Rd.
Exit 14- I-495/US 64/US 264 East (future I-87 North)
As you see, I-87 meets I-440 2 miles from I-40 interchange, I predict that I-440 will stay, which means I-87 will multiplex with I-440 and then both routes will end at I-40. Similar multiplexes that end at or close to the parent route:
1. I-26/I-240 in Asheville, I-26 meets I-240 4 miles north of I-40 interchange, and runs with it until the western I-40 interchange, and I-240 ends (and begins) there while I-26 continues past the interchange. (I-240 isn't going to be decommissioned)
2. I-73/I-840 in Greensboro. I-73 meets I-840 at Exit 3 (I-840's exit number) and both routes run down to western I-40 interchange, while I-840 ends there, I-73 continues past of the interchange.
3. I-785/I-840 in Greensboro (future), I-785 meets I-840 at Exit 14 (future exit) around 7 miles from eastern I-40 interchange and both routes run down to I-40/I-85/Bus. 85 interchange. Both routes end there.
4. I-41/I-43/I-894 in Wisconsin. I-894 ends at I-94 interchange in both termini, while I-41 and I-43 continues past the interchange.
So that is why I don't think NCDOT will decommission I-440 (it won't make any sense). They will just pair it with I-87 and have both routes end at I-40 eastern interchange.
They may do so. My major reason for arguing for a I-440 truncation has to do with the East-West direction for that route and that one has to initially head east on I-440 West when leaving I-40, and that a north direction may lessen any confusion that may cause.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:56:30 AM
Quote from: Strider on July 16, 2016, 05:10:59 PM
Some of you have been wondering if I-440 will be decommissioned when I-87 routing is complete... I have been too, but then I realized that I do not think they are going to decommission I-440 because it does not make sense to end I-440 at I-87 2 miles away from I-40 interchange.
Here is the exit numbers for I-440 from I-40 to future I-87:
Exit 16- I-40
Exit 15- Poole Rd.
Exit 14- I-495/US 64/US 264 East (future I-87 North)
As you see, I-87 meets I-440 2 miles from I-40 interchange, I predict that I-440 will stay, which means I-87 will multiplex with I-440 and then both routes will end at I-40. Similar multiplexes that end at or close to the parent route:
1. I-26/I-240 in Asheville, I-26 meets I-240 4 miles north of I-40 interchange, and runs with it until the western I-40 interchange, and I-240 ends (and begins) there while I-26 continues past the interchange. (I-240 isn't going to be decommissioned)
2. I-73/I-840 in Greensboro. I-73 meets I-840 at Exit 3 (I-840's exit number) and both routes run down to western I-40 interchange, while I-840 ends there, I-73 continues past of the interchange.
3. I-785/I-840 in Greensboro (future), I-785 meets I-840 at Exit 14 (future exit) around 7 miles from eastern I-40 interchange and both routes run down to I-40/I-85/Bus. 85 interchange. Both routes end there.
4. I-41/I-43/I-894 in Wisconsin. I-894 ends at I-94 interchange in both termini, while I-41 and I-43 continues past the interchange.
So that is why I don't think NCDOT will decommission I-440 (it won't make any sense). They will just pair it with I-87 and have both routes end at I-40 eastern interchange.
They may do so. My major reason for arguing for a I-440 truncation has to do with the East-West direction for that route and that one has to initially head east on I-440 West when leaving I-40, and that a north direction may lessen any confusion that may cause.
I agree. I don't think NCDOT would've asked AASHTO to have I-87 follow I-440 if they didn't intend on truncating I-440. It was even mentioned in their email response to froggie that he posted in the I-36/I-89 thread.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17910.msg2143874#msg2143874 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17910.msg2143874#msg2143874)
QuoteWe see opportunities to reduce the length of I-440 and possibly diminish some confusion on the 440 loop. We have not currently made this decision, but are considering the various alternatives.
I think a truncation of I-440 is all but certain.
It would be similar to I-26/I-240 in Asheville and I-73/I-840 in Greensboro, so I doubt they would decommission a small section of I-440. Also the fact that filthy casuals seem to understand that even digit numbers tend to loop back to the mainline.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on July 17, 2016, 10:51:02 AM
It would be similar to I-26/I-240 in Asheville and I-73/I-840 in Greensboro, so I doubt they would decommission a small section of I-440. Also the fact that filthy casuals seem to understand that even digit numbers tend to loop back to the mainline.
It's not so much a numbering issue as it is a directional issue. I-440 is signed West when it goes east between I-40 and the Knightdale Bypass before finally turning west. I-240 and I-840 don't have that problem because those two roads don't have a section that runs the complete opposite of what direction it's signed as. That's why there's no issue with I-240 and I-840.
Quote from: LM117 on July 17, 2016, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on July 17, 2016, 10:51:02 AM
It would be similar to I-26/I-240 in Asheville and I-73/I-840 in Greensboro, so I doubt they would decommission a small section of I-440. Also the fact that filthy casuals seem to understand that even digit numbers tend to loop back to the mainline.
It's not so much a numbering issue as it is a directional issue. I-440 is signed West when it goes east between I-40 and the Knightdale Bypass before finally turning west. I-240 and I-840 don't have that problem because those two roads don't have a section that runs the complete opposite of what direction it's signed as. That's why there's no issue with I-240 and I-840.
People are not confused now with I-440 West/US 64 East, so I don't see the issue. We also have interesting concurrences like I-73 North/I-85 South/US 421 North in Greensboro, again doubt its an issue.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:56:30 AM
Quote from: Strider on July 16, 2016, 05:10:59 PM
Some of you have been wondering if I-440 will be decommissioned when I-87 routing is complete... I have been too, but then I realized that I do not think they are going to decommission I-440 because it does not make sense to end I-440 at I-87 2 miles away from I-40 interchange.
Here is the exit numbers for I-440 from I-40 to future I-87:
Exit 16- I-40
Exit 15- Poole Rd.
Exit 14- I-495/US 64/US 264 East (future I-87 North)
As you see, I-87 meets I-440 2 miles from I-40 interchange, I predict that I-440 will stay, which means I-87 will multiplex with I-440 and then both routes will end at I-40. Similar multiplexes that end at or close to the parent route:
1. I-26/I-240 in Asheville, I-26 meets I-240 4 miles north of I-40 interchange, and runs with it until the western I-40 interchange, and I-240 ends (and begins) there while I-26 continues past the interchange. (I-240 isn't going to be decommissioned)
2. I-73/I-840 in Greensboro. I-73 meets I-840 at Exit 3 (I-840's exit number) and both routes run down to western I-40 interchange, while I-840 ends there, I-73 continues past of the interchange.
3. I-785/I-840 in Greensboro (future), I-785 meets I-840 at Exit 14 (future exit) around 7 miles from eastern I-40 interchange and both routes run down to I-40/I-85/Bus. 85 interchange. Both routes end there.
4. I-41/I-43/I-894 in Wisconsin. I-894 ends at I-94 interchange in both termini, while I-41 and I-43 continues past the interchange.
So that is why I don't think NCDOT will decommission I-440 (it won't make any sense). They will just pair it with I-87 and have both routes end at I-40 eastern interchange.
They may do so. My major reason for arguing for a I-440 truncation has to do with the East-West direction for that route and that one has to initially head east on I-440 West when leaving I-40, and that a north direction may lessen any confusion that may cause.
Yeah, i know I-440's routing in this area is odd, but you're right, they may do so. We will see when they makes a decision. :-)
Quote from: LM117 on July 17, 2016, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on July 17, 2016, 10:51:02 AM
It would be similar to I-26/I-240 in Asheville and I-73/I-840 in Greensboro, so I doubt they would decommission a small section of I-440. Also the fact that filthy casuals seem to understand that even digit numbers tend to loop back to the mainline.
It's not so much a numbering issue as it is a directional issue. I-440 is signed West when it goes east between I-40 and the Knightdale Bypass before finally turning west. I-240 and I-840 don't have that problem because those two roads don't have a section that runs the complete opposite of what direction it's signed as. That's why there's no issue with I-240 and I-840.
Originally I-440 was posted as Inner 440 in the clockwise direction and Outer 440 in the counter-clockwise direction. Somehow folks in Raleigh just couldn't figure this out and kept going the wrong way, so after years of the public grumbling about it NCDOT gave up and introduced the present East-West signing. This signing may confuse outsiders but it is not confusing to locals, because there is a clear concept locally of East Raleigh and West Raleigh. If you want to go to East Raleigh you take 440 East and if you want to go to West Raleigh you take 440 West. Simple.
I don't know if 440 will be truncated, but I don't think the decision will be based on these directional questions.
I would argue that it not be truncated for the following reason. If it's truncated, people westbound on I-40 will have to take I-87 North to find 440, and that probably requires providing a "TO 440" signing as well as "NORTH 87." If you have to do that, you haven't really accomplished anything with the truncation.
IMO overlaps where a route ends during the overlap are pointless.
Quote from: vdeane on July 17, 2016, 04:02:10 PM
IMO overlaps where a route ends during the overlap are pointless.
But they've always spoke well of you.
Quote from: Thing 342 on July 15, 2016, 04:41:34 PM
While I don't think I-87 will ever come to VA, I thought I'd post this here since it's an improvement to the proposed corridor:
I drove through the construction site for the US-17 / Dominion Blvd freeway upgrade on my way home from work yesterday and took a few photos, heading northbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julyf.png&hash=5c369493359fabec52b6f6171ddbeb77163c71e6)
Eaglet Pkwy to Scenic Pkwy: Asphalt for the future NB lanes has recently been laid down, while traffic still uses the original roadbed. Some guardrails have been installed, but overall not much progress. This will likely be the last section to be completed.
Scenic Pkwy to VA-165: Traffic shifts over to the new roadbed just past past Scenic Pkwy while the old set is rehabbed. This section seems close to completion, with the SB lanes sporting what appeared to be a decently driveable surface.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julya.png&hash=24d823ddffe74583aca1b36dc2721d5199c3942d)
VA-165 Interchange: The future northbound half is complete, with SB traffic using the new bridge while NB traffic is forced to use the (fairly short) exit ramps. The southbound portion looks close to being done, with some missing guard rails and some scaffolding around the bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julyb.png&hash=a542955f9eb2ff02c0afa19e8c9f7f1fae24ced1)
Veterans' Bridge: NB half completed and open to traffic. SB half stretches about 85% of the way across the river, with a gap in the middle. This portion also seems like it will take awhile to complete. The cameras for the toll gantry have been installed, but are not operational. You also have this cramped BGS with distances put in exit tabs, which is a bit weird. (It also has a twin heading southbound).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julyc.png&hash=787bd14ebe102380dd09e1f068c2f148faca2b38)
Veterans' Bridge to VA-166: Largely an extension of the bridge. SB lanes are completed, won't be open until bridge is finished. VA-190 absent from this BGS for whatever reason.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julyd.png&hash=df35ae0d9fa8310e430f562f5769b6843de6a850)
VA-166 Interchange: Completed, with both bridges open to traffic, yet restricted to only one lane for some reason.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17julye.png&hash=7653b6f213898af708f13229d48f0053a4188f0e)
VA-166 to VA-190: Both sets of lanes are complete, yet with a 35 mph speed limit and the southbound set restricted to 1 lane for some reason.
VA-190 interchange: Lots of work going on here. Mainline bridges are complete, but likely not open due to the unfinished state of the ramp approaches.
Great photos. Some of those are candidates for Signs with Design Errors, though, sheesh.
As I said, if there had been plans to connect this to New York (there isn't), the number would've made a lot more sense. But it looks like NC is stuck with another out-of-place number on a highway that will never meet its original incarnation (see I-74 in Cincinnati).
I know it's not
directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
QuoteROCKY MOUNT, N.C. – After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.
The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.
"The Carolina Connector will be a game-changer for our state's economy, supporting North Carolina's agriculture, ports and position as the Southeast's No. 1 state for manufacturing jobs," Gov. Pat McCrory said in announcing the project.
Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.
DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.
"CSX is proud to bring this transformational project to eastern North Carolina which will provide cheaper, faster and more environmentally-friendly connections for North Carolina's businesses and ports to domestic and international markets," CSX Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Ward said in a statement.
Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
Still, it wasn't CSX's preferred site.
The company announced plans in January to build the Carolina Connector near Selma. But that plan quickly fizzled when landowners protested the idea of being forced to sell their property, and county and state officials came out against the proposal.
In April, Four Oaks Mayor Linwood Parker pushed for the hub in his town as an economic driver. Again, opposition from local property owners quashed any potential deal.
Carolinas Gateway Partnership, a local economic development organization, controls nearly all of the land needed for the terminal in Rocky Mount.
EDIT: An update to the article gave the exact location of the CSX terminal.
QuoteThe $270 million hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built across U.S. Highway 301 from North Carolina Wesleyan College in Rocky Mount.
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
QuoteROCKY MOUNT, N.C. – After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.
The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.
Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.
DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.
Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.
It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 10:04:10 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 14, 2016, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.
As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs. I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange. As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.
Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.
Here is a photo from two weeks ago of said sign posts. They still sit empty today...but they're drinking Milk and before you know it....
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8796/28310865756_435a47d009.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47)Future I-87 Coming Soon (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 19, 2016, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 10:04:10 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 14, 2016, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.
As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs. I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange. As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.
Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.
Here is a photo from two weeks ago of said sign posts. They still sit empty today...but they're drinking Milk and before you know it....
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8796/28310865756_435a47d009.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47)Future I-87 Coming Soon (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Thanks, and yeah, I doubt those sign posts will be empty for much longer. I'm kinda surprised it still isn't signed, given how quick NCDOT put up Future I-42 signs along US-70. But I'm guessing Future I-87 will be up east of I-95 within a month.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 19, 2016, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
QuoteROCKY MOUNT, N.C. – After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.
The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.
Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.
DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.
Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.
It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.
Agreed. However, I was surprised about VA. I wasn't even aware they were competing for it. No mention of it was ever made on the local news stations here. I already knew about SC. SC did their damndest to steal the CSX hub from NC once they caught wind of the NIMBY's in Johnston County raising hell.
Quoteand they also reduce truck traffic on state highways.
You two must've missed this part of the article. The intent of such facilities is to get more freight onto rail, not to add trucks onto highways.
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2016, 08:51:19 AM
Quoteand they also reduce truck traffic on state highways.
You two must've missed this part of the article. The intent of such facilities is to get more freight onto rail, not to add trucks onto highways.
A couple of quick things. First Froggie is exactly right - this will take trucks off the highway - between RM and the ports along the coast. Warehouses will cluster around this site. It'll be located just east of US 301 between current US 64 and NC 4. Actually the recently opened four lane Betts Parkway terminates pretty much at the site.
Although it will take trucks off the road - it will be a key on loading and offloading site. So trucks will start or end journeys from Rocky Mount. This along with the interstate designations will be attractions for the area. At best it could accelerate upgrading 64 to Raleigh to standards but I don't see anything for Williamston to VA improved by this.
Who knows maybe improvements to 95 as well. It also I think along with the Virgina Atlantic Gateway project may help NC push to shift passenger rail along the 85 corridor as part of the SE high speed rail corridor.
Who knows - but this is great news for Rocky Mount that has been hit hard over the past few decades with various companies leaving town.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 20, 2016, 09:52:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2016, 08:51:19 AM
Quoteand they also reduce truck traffic on state highways.
You two must've missed this part of the article. The intent of such facilities is to get more freight onto rail, not to add trucks onto highways.
Although it will take trucks off the road - it will be a key on loading and offloading site. So trucks will start or end journeys from Rocky Mount. This along with the interstate designations will be attractions for the area. At best it could accelerate upgrading 64 to Raleigh to standards but I don't see anything for Williamston to VA improved by this.
You said it better than I could've. I didn't miss that article tidbit that froggie claims that I did. This was exactly what I was thinking. I agree that US-17 won't likely be affected by this. However, on a slightly (but brief) off-topic note, it
may also accelerate I-795's extension from Goldsboro to I-40 since it would essentially be a direct route to the Port of Wilmington from Rocky Mount. I-42 is already well underway for most of it's corridor, so I don't see that changing.
BTW, if you're interested, here's an article giving full details in how Rocky Mount landed the CSX hub.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2016/07/20/Local-officials-craft-deal-to-bring-CSX-terminal-to-area.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2016/07/20/Local-officials-craft-deal-to-bring-CSX-terminal-to-area.html)
If this is going to impact Future Interstates in the area at all, it would be west of I-95 towards Raleigh and the manufacturing hubs around central North Carolina. It MIGHT accelerate I-795's extension to I-40, but I doubt this will pull much from either Wilmington or Moorhead City because those ports are hamstrung by shallower depths. And it won't pull much from Hampton Roads because the main draw to/from there is either cross country or on already-existing Interstates and rail tracks that don't go to North Carolina**.
** - I'm aware of the CSX line that heads northeast from Weldon, NC to Franklin, VA, but that line A) needs some work and B) does not directly connect via CSX trackage to the Norfolk or Portsmouth terminals. That's either Norfolk Southern or short line railroads that connect to the Southside terminals. CSX only directly connects to the Newport News terminal, but from NC that would require trains to go to Richmond and loop 3/4 around the city to access the tracks.
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2016, 12:29:51 PM
It MIGHT accelerate I-795's extension to I-40, but I doubt this will pull much from either Wilmington or Moorhead City because those ports are hamstrung by shallower depths.
Morehead City's port may be hampered, but I doubt the Port of Wilmington will be hampered for much longer. Wilmington's port just received their first post-Panamax container ship earlier this month, with the ability to handle even larger post-Panamax ships later this summer.
From July 5:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12709 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12709)
QuoteWilmington, N.C. — Building upon Governor Pat McCrory's efforts to increase trade and promote economic growth at our state ports, North Carolina officials welcomed the largest containership to visit the Port of Wilmington. The Hanjin Baltimore, measuring 984 feet in length and 140 feet in width, is the first of many post-Panamax vessels to be served at the recently updated container port in North Carolina.
"Our state ports are an important asset for creating jobs and connecting North Carolinians to opportunities around the world," said Governor McCrory. "This important milestone shows our commitment to supporting our ports and overall economy is paying off and keeping North Carolina globally competitive."
The expansion of the North Carolina ports is a key part of Governor McCrory's 25-year Vision for North Carolina. That includes providing access for the Panamax vessels, expanding access to the ports inland by developing intermodal train service at the Port of Wilmington, and pursuing opportunities to develop intermodal facilities along the I-95 corridor to improve the movement of goods through North Carolina and along the East Coast.
"This is an important day for our Ports and for the State of North Carolina," said Executive Director Paul J. Cozza. "We've been working diligently on modernizing our ports and to see our plans come to fruition by proving that the Port of Wilmington is big ship ready is a great feeling."
Built in 2005 by Hyundai Heavy Industries, the Hanjin Baltimore has served various Far East trade lanes in its tenure. Holding 7,500 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), which are containers 20 feet long and eight feet tall, the vessel is approximately 63 percent larger than any ship that has ever visited the Port of Wilmington.
"This vessel not only signifies improving global trade but it also represents the future," said Chief Commercial Officer Greg Fennell. "If there was ever a doubt that we could not accept a post-Panamax vessel, this ship puts that debate to rest."
Recent infrastructure advancements allow North Carolina's Ports to improve upon its operational efficiencies, to keep cargo moving and to remain congestion free. The Port of Wilmington will be prepared to handle even larger post-Panamax vessels, up to the 10,000 TEU class, by later this summer.
"This landmark event is the product of a North Carolina Ports infrastructure investment plan to meet shipping industry requirements," said Tom Adams, Chairman of the Board of Directors. "With the expansion of the Panama Canal taking place last weekend, the Port of Wilmington is adding new cranes, an enhanced berth, a wider turning basin and will have further expansion in the future."
North Carolina's Ports in Wilmington and Morehead City, plus inland terminals in Charlotte and Greensboro, link the state's consumers, businesses and industry to world markets, and serve as magnets to attract new business and industry while receiving no direct taxpayer subsidy. Port activities contribute statewide to 76,000 jobs and $700 million each year in state and local tax revenues.
(https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/Image.ashx?id=3712&orig=1)
Quote from: LM117 on July 20, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2016, 12:29:51 PM
It MIGHT accelerate I-795's extension to I-40, but I doubt this will pull much from either Wilmington or Moorhead City because those ports are hamstrung by shallower depths.
Morehead City's port may be hampered, but I doubt the Port of Wilmington will be hampered for much longer. Wilmington's port just received their first post-Panamax container ship earlier this month, with the ability to handle even larger post-Panamax ships later this summer.
From July 5:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12709 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12709)
QuoteWilmington, N.C. — Building upon Governor Pat McCrory's efforts to increase trade and promote economic growth at our state ports, North Carolina officials welcomed the largest containership to visit the Port of Wilmington. The Hanjin Baltimore, measuring 984 feet in length and 140 feet in width, is the first of many post-Panamax vessels to be served at the recently updated container port in North Carolina.
"Our state ports are an important asset for creating jobs and connecting North Carolinians to opportunities around the world," said Governor McCrory. "This important milestone shows our commitment to supporting our ports and overall economy is paying off and keeping North Carolina globally competitive."
The expansion of the North Carolina ports is a key part of Governor McCrory's 25-year Vision for North Carolina. That includes providing access for the Panamax vessels, expanding access to the ports inland by developing intermodal train service at the Port of Wilmington, and pursuing opportunities to develop intermodal facilities along the I-95 corridor to improve the movement of goods through North Carolina and along the East Coast.
"This is an important day for our Ports and for the State of North Carolina," said Executive Director Paul J. Cozza. "We've been working diligently on modernizing our ports and to see our plans come to fruition by proving that the Port of Wilmington is big ship ready is a great feeling."
Built in 2005 by Hyundai Heavy Industries, the Hanjin Baltimore has served various Far East trade lanes in its tenure. Holding 7,500 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), which are containers 20 feet long and eight feet tall, the vessel is approximately 63 percent larger than any ship that has ever visited the Port of Wilmington.
"This vessel not only signifies improving global trade but it also represents the future," said Chief Commercial Officer Greg Fennell. "If there was ever a doubt that we could not accept a post-Panamax vessel, this ship puts that debate to rest."
Recent infrastructure advancements allow North Carolina's Ports to improve upon its operational efficiencies, to keep cargo moving and to remain congestion free. The Port of Wilmington will be prepared to handle even larger post-Panamax vessels, up to the 10,000 TEU class, by later this summer.
"This landmark event is the product of a North Carolina Ports infrastructure investment plan to meet shipping industry requirements," said Tom Adams, Chairman of the Board of Directors. "With the expansion of the Panama Canal taking place last weekend, the Port of Wilmington is adding new cranes, an enhanced berth, a wider turning basin and will have further expansion in the future."
North Carolina's Ports in Wilmington and Morehead City, plus inland terminals in Charlotte and Greensboro, link the state's consumers, businesses and industry to world markets, and serve as magnets to attract new business and industry while receiving no direct taxpayer subsidy. Port activities contribute statewide to 76,000 jobs and $700 million each year in state and local tax revenues.
Morehead City is an afterthought and isn't a factor. Wilmington may have the capability but it can't currently handle a large volume as other ports.
Check out these links to see how Wilmington compares to other ports and that Morehead really is a fishing dock compared to the others.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/bts_fact_sheets/october_2010/html/figure_03.html
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/bts_fact_sheets/october_2010/html/figure_04.html
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/bts_fact_sheets/october_2010/html/table_06.html
http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/southeast-ports-whats-on-the-horizon/
If Interstate 87 were to enter Virginia, the Highway 168/Interstate 464 corridor would be the route I'd choose for it, since most of that stretch is already built as a freeway/tollway combo.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 20, 2016, 04:53:20 PM
If Interstate 87 were to enter Virginia, the Highway 168/Interstate 464 corridor would be the route I'd choose for it, since most of that stretch is already built as a freeway/tollway combo.
Personally, in a perfect world, I would too. Problem is, a new terrain route would be needed to connect US-17 north of Elizabeth City to VA-168, which would be a non-starter due to the sensitive wetlands it would cross and the inevitable lawsuits that would incur if such a route had been chosen. It would cost more money than the trouble's worth, between construction costs and litigation costs. Upgrading US-17 is the only feasible option here.
However, I-464 could easily become part of I-87, which would make more sense ending at I-264 in Norfolk rather than I-64 in Chesapeake. Whether VDOT and/or the leaders in Hampton Roads will consider it is a different story. I'm not sure how much work, if any, would need to be done to the current I-64/I-264/US-17/VA-168 interchange in Chesapeake in order to extend I-87 over I-464. I've driven I-64 through Chesapeake multiple times since I have relatives living in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, but I didn't pay much attention to the interchange design.
Quote from: LM117 on July 20, 2016, 07:05:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 20, 2016, 04:53:20 PM
If Interstate 87 were to enter Virginia, the Highway 168/Interstate 464 corridor would be the route I'd choose for it, since most of that stretch is already built as a freeway/tollway combo.
Personally, in a perfect world, I would too. Problem is, a new terrain route would be needed to connect US-17 north of Elizabeth City to VA-168, which would be a non-starter due to the sensitive wetlands it would cross and the inevitable lawsuits that would incur if such a route had been chosen. It would cost more money than the trouble's worth, between construction costs and litigation costs. Upgrading US-17 is the only feasible option here.
However, I-464 could easily become part of I-87, which would make more sense ending at I-264 in Norfolk rather than I-64 in Chesapeake. Whether VDOT and/or the leaders in Hampton Roads will consider it is a different story. I'm not sure how much work, if any, would need to be done to the current I-64/I-264/US-17/VA-168 interchange in Chesapeake in order to extend I-87 over I-464. I've driven I-64 through Chesapeake multiple times since I have relatives living in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, but I didn't pay much attention to the interchange design.
That interchange is a mostly-standard cloverleaf, with C/D lanes headed WB (due east). It gets badly congested heading EB (due west) during rush hour due to weaving in the interchange and a bottleneck as one heads toward the High-Rise bridge.
The major problem with using the Chesapeake Expressway for I-87, as you alluded to is the fact that you would have to build a completely new route between South Mills and Moyock over sensitive wetland area, which, given NCDOT's relationship with environmental groups in the past, is likely a non-starter.
Furthermore, the VA-168 freeway is not up to interstate standards, and any interstate conversion would likely require major repairs to the bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway near Great Bridge.
As I've mentioned in the I-795 and I-42 threads, I've been checking out NCDOT's preliminary 2018-2027 STIP page. Here are the projects listed for the I-87 corridor (US-64/US-17):
-Widen I-495/US-64 from 6 lanes to 8 lanes from I-440 to US-64 Business near Knightdale.
-Upgrade US-64 to interstate standards from Rolesville Road/Knightdale Bypass to the Martin County line just east of Bethel.
-Upgrade US-17 to interstate standards from US-64 in Williamston to the Virginia state line with the project broken up into phases.
That's it for the NC's part of I-87. I couldn't find anything from VDOT regarding US-17 in Hampton Roads other than the Dominion Boulevard project.
https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html)
The 8 lanes on the Kdale Bypass I personally don't see as a top priority. Upgrading east of exit 430 - yes. I do believe that making 64/495/87 what have you six lanes from Rolesville Road to the 64/264 split in Zebulon is a necessity - considering eastern wake will continue to grow over the next decade plus. (Since I live in and commute through eastern wake) I do have bias.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on August 05, 2016, 11:50:27 AM
The 8 lanes on the Kdale Bypass I personally don't see as a top priority. Upgrading east of exit 430 - yes. I do believe that making 64/495/87 what have you six lanes from Rolesville Road to the 64/264 split in Zebulon is a necessity - considering eastern wake will continue to grow over the next decade plus. (Since I live in and commute through eastern wake) I do have bias.
I agree. I drove on the Knightdale Bypass last year and it seemed to flow just fine as a 6-lane highway. 8 lanes would be overkill, IMO. US-64 between the Knightdale Bypass and the split in Zebulon definitely needs 6-lanes. It got pretty congested on that stretch. Why they put 8-laning the Knightdale Bypass and not 6-laning the road between the bypass and the Zebulon split on the STIP is beyond me.
NCDOT Secretary Nick Tennyson wrote an Op-Ed in
The Virginian-Pilot regarding the future CSX Carolina Connector hub in Rocky Mount and I-87.
http://pilotonline.com/opinion/columnist/guest/nick-tennyson-project-will-better-connect-n-c-to-va/article_47c69601-4bcc-5e32-8951-77f4ea556b70.html (http://pilotonline.com/opinion/columnist/guest/nick-tennyson-project-will-better-connect-n-c-to-va/article_47c69601-4bcc-5e32-8951-77f4ea556b70.html)
QuotePLANNING AND executing multi-faceted transportation infrastructure is not only crucial to easing congestion and improving reliability, but it also can foster economic growth and the creation of new jobs.
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory recently announced a new transportation hub to be constructed in Rocky Mount. Known as the Carolina Connector, the terminal will position the state as a national leader in intermodal freight movement and promote job creation.
Economic studies indicate the new facility will create 1,500 jobs in North Carolina as a result of the terminal's operations and support the creation of thousands of jobs throughout North Carolina and Virginia.
I was present for the historic news, which is one of the most important transportation and commerce initiatives ever announced for eastern North Carolina. It is also important for future commerce in southeastern Virginia.
Along with the future interstate it will link to, the hub is a central component of the governor's 25-Year Vision for Transportation, and demonstrates the administration's commitment to continued investment in infrastructure.
The growing need for seamless freight movement is critical in today's global economy. North Carolina is now positioned to play a pivotal role in both receiving raw goods originating from around the world and in distributing products and produce to a global market.
The state-of-the-art terminal thus puts local businesses at a distinct advantage and gives the state significant leverage in attracting future opportunities.
Freight today moves in containers that can easily be transferred at central hubs like the Carolina Connector to other trains and trucks that will carry the cargo to its final destination.
Planning for future roads and rail lines to handle this kind of traffic is also under way.
The strategic location of the Carolina Connector is convenient to other transportation resources and has geographical advantages. It is in close proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future I-87 and I-42 corridors and is in a great position to serve Raleigh's economic center.
The future I-87 designation for U.S. 64/17 is critical to the economic futures of both northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia because it will better connect Raleigh to Hampton Roads.
We are also preparing our state for future success through an overhaul of the state's transportation funding formula. As in Virginia, transportation projects are now scored based on merit, not politics.
The Carolina Connector would not be possible without the new data-driven funding formula implemented in 2013, which qualified the project for $100 million in state funding for track improvements and connecting infrastructure at the new facility.
The Carolina Connector and future highway designations are prime examples of how the McCrory administration is successfully improving the future of travel and commerce in the Southeast.
How long before the 495 shields between Interstate 440 and Interstate 540 disappear?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2016, 04:56:45 PM
How long before the 495 shields between Interstate 440 and Interstate 540 disappear?
When NCDOT requests AASHTO to decommission I-495 in favor of I-87. It's a process.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2016, 04:56:45 PM
How long before the 495 shields between Interstate 440 and Interstate 540 disappear?
There's been no word on it, but I'm almost positive NCDOT will seek to decommission I-495/Future I-495 during AASHTO's next meeting. At the same time, they'll also likely ask for what's now signed as I-495 to become I-87.
Another possibility that might happen is that NCDOT could ask to decommission the small part of I-440 that I-87 is supposed to follow, between I-495 and I-40 in southeast Raleigh. I brought it up before, but others disagreed with me. I still think it'll happen, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No biggie.
AASHTO's deadline for accepting applications is
September 16. AASHTO's meeting is from November 12-15 in Boston.
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx)
http://www.aashtoannualmeeting.org/ (http://www.aashtoannualmeeting.org/)
Does future 87 really need to duplex with 440 to reach 40? I think that would be unnecessary. Future 87 would hardly be the only two-digit Interstate Highway to terminate at a three-digit Interstate Highway.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 09, 2016, 05:18:35 PM
Does future 87 really need to duplex with 440 to reach 40? I think that would be unnecessary. Future 87 would hardly be the only two-digit Interstate Highway to terminate at a three-digit Interstate Highway.
According to an email response that froggie posted a while back, NCDOT saw an opportunity to eliminate what they consider to be a confusing part of the I-40/I-440 junction, where if you're coming in to southeast Raleigh on westbound I-40 approaching the I-40/I-440 junction, I-440 is signed "West" when it actually turns east, then north and west. That response is what leads me to believe that they will decommission that small bit of I-440 and have I-87 replace it, ending at I-40. If that wasn't NCDOT's intention, then they would've simply had I-87 ending at I-440, just like I-495 does now, IMO.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17910.msg2143874#msg2143874 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17910.msg2143874#msg2143874)
QuoteThe Department will likely replace the 495 section and not continue it as aconcurrent route. We see opportunities to reduce the length of I-440 and possibly diminish some confusion on the 440 loop. We have not currently made this decision, but are considering the various alternatives.
If I'm right, I-87 won't be duplexed with that small bit of I-440. It would simply replace it.
Honestly, I would make this two separate highways, with 87 only going from Norfolk to Williamston (then southward to Wilmington and beyond). The east-west US 64 section (extendable to Nags Head) I would have numbered as I-46 or I-48.
Speaking of US 64 in Wake and Nash Counties, I wonder if they'll correct the mathematical error on US 264 in Zebulon. Here's what I mean:
US 64 at I-440 is exit 419, and that's also the western terminus of US 264.
The split in Zebulon is Exit 436, a difference of 17 miles.
The equivalent ramp from US 264 West to US 64 East is Exit 19...you're two off.
Quote from: OracleUsr on August 09, 2016, 11:07:29 PM
Speaking of US 64 in Wake and Nash Counties, I wonder if they'll correct the mathematical error on US 264 in Zebulon. Here's what I mean:
US 64 at I-440 is exit 419, and that's also the western terminus of US 264.
The split in Zebulon is Exit 436, a difference of 17 miles.
The equivalent ramp from US 264 West to US 64 East is Exit 19...you're two off.
I don't understand why US-264 doesn't just end in Zebulon in the first place. It seems pointless to have US-64/US-264 run concurrent between Zebulon and I-440. I understand why I-840/I-785 will be concurrent in Greensboro and why I-795 will be concurrent with an I-x87 near Wilson if NCDOT decides to upgrade US-264 like Greenville is wanting, but US-64/US-264? Nope, I don't get that one. It's common knowledge that US-64 goes to Raleigh, so I doubt there would be any problems if US-264 was truncated.
QuoteI don't understand why US-264 doesn't just end in Zebulon in the first place.
It did before 1997. I would hazard a guess that eastern NC interests (i.e. Wilson, Greenville, and/or Washington) wanted a single route number between them and Raleigh directly, and were successful in convincing NCDOT and AASHTO to follow suit.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 19, 2016, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 10:04:10 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 14, 2016, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.
As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs. I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange. As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.
Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.
Here is a photo from two weeks ago of said sign posts. They still sit empty today...but they're drinking Milk and before you know it....
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8796/28310865756_435a47d009.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47)Future I-87 Coming Soon (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
These poor sign posts going on two months without a sign. The one on the left is starting to warp to the right. It gets pretty lonely out there in the hot summer sun.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on August 18, 2016, 12:49:15 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 19, 2016, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 10:04:10 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on July 14, 2016, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.
As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs. I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange. As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.
Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.
Here is a photo from two weeks ago of said sign posts. They still sit empty today...but they're drinking Milk and before you know it....
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8796/28310865756_435a47d009.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47)Future I-87 Coming Soon (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
These poor sign posts going on two months without a sign. The one on the left is starting to warp to the right. It gets pretty lonely out there in the hot summer sun.
That's surprising, given NCDOT's haste to put up Future I-42 signs on US-70. I'm starting to wonder if NCDOT is waiting to have I-495 canned before putting up Future I-87 signs, even though US-64 east of I-95 wasn't part of I-495. AASHTO's deadline for accepting applications is September 16, so we might find out soon.
Maybe there is consideration of withdrawing the I-87 request? Without the Hampton Roads connection (which would be better done with the whole US 17 corridor, and would be better designated as I-97 or I-99), an even number would be better. I'd just go with I-46 or I-48 here.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 18, 2016, 10:09:01 PM
Maybe there is consideration of withdrawing the I-87 request? Without the Hampton Roads connection (which would be better done with the whole US 17 corridor, and would be better designated as I-97 or I-99), an even number would be better. I'd just go with I-46 or I-48 here.
There's no chance of NCDOT withdrawing I-87. It's already approved by AASHTO and probably the FHWA by now. Back in 2012, NCDOT asked FHWA to designate the route as I-44, but it seems to have been turned down since I-495 came about a year later.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140517130607/http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140517130607/http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf)
I just came across an interesting (for me anyway, YMMV) article from 1992. It seems that the Raleigh-Norfolk interstate plan was being cooked up even back then and NCDOT and the HRMPO were leaning towards using US-13 rather than US-17.
http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-10-22/news/9210220164_1_new-route-new-road-study (http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-10-22/news/9210220164_1_new-route-new-road-study)
QuotePlans for a Norfolk-to-Raleigh, N.C. interstate went nowhere Wednesday when a regional planning group took exception to the state's choice of Route 17 through Chesapeake for the path of part of the new road.
The Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization, an advisory group, voted to ask the state Department of Transportation to give the options more study and to consider Route 13 through Suffolk.
Officials from Suffolk and Chesapeake, both of which are represented on the planning group, have previously vied for the routes through their communities.
The planning organization's two Newport News representatives, City Councilman Joe S. Frank and City Manager Edgar E. Maroney, backed the call for further study.
Frank said after the meeting that he wanted to negotiate a compromise that might provide improved connections with the Peninsula.
Maroney said there were "some very severe environmental problems" with the Route 17 corridor.
In a letter to the group, VDOT Commissioner Ray D. Pethtel recently reiterated the department's support for Route 17 despite the planning group's previous objections.
Pethtel said the federal legislation that provided $47.8 million to study new construction and a major upgrading of existing highway designates Route 17 as part of the new route.
No construction money has been appropriated for the work. Even the cheapest version of the road would cost about $240 million, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has estimated. The price could climb to as much as $1 billion.
VDOT's Pethtel said in his letter that most of his department's study of the project has been concentrated on Route 17 and Route 104 between the North Carolina line and Interstate 464 in Chesapeake.
However, at North Carolina's request, VDOT also has included alternatives along Route 13 from the state line through Suffolk to Bowers Hill and then to Interstate 64, Pethtel said.
In both cases, I-464 would connect with downtown Norfolk, he said.
How many posters believe future Interstate 87 will ever enter Virginia? My guess is that it is a toss-up.
I think I-87 in Virginia has a better chance then I-73 or I-74, but still as of now unlikely. VDOT is in the midst of constructing the Dominion Blvd improvements on US-17 in Chesapeake but not up to interstate standards. In fact I think part of it might be tolled. My point is that NC is really going to have to convince VA that upgrading the rest of US-17 is worth the $1 billion or so. Personally I would prefer I-87 travel up the VA-168 corridor. Pretty much all VDOT would have to do is widen some shoulders and that one bridge over the North Landing River. Minimal VDOT work. As for the road still being allowed to be tolled, I'm not sure...
I wouldn't call it "minimal VDOT work" for VA 168. That southern 2 miles of VA 168 in Chesapeake has 3 signals, some private access, 2 No-Outlet road intersections, and a crapton of wetlands.
Nevermind that it wouldn't be VDOT but the city of Chesapeake being responsible.
Then there's the little matter of getting a corridor from US 17 over to NC/VA 168. That wouldn't be cheap either.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 04:58:20 PM
How many posters believe future Interstate 87 will ever enter Virginia? My guess is that it is a toss-up.
Very unlikely, IMO. The 1992 article I linked in my last post notwithstanding, Virginia has zero interest in I-87. It has the support of Hampton Roads, but that's the extent of it. NC pretty much dragged VA into supporting the bill that helped make I-87 into law (the corridor, not the number). Even then, only 4 out of 11 VA Congressmen supported it while all of NC's delegation supported it.
Personally, I think the only way I-87 will reach Hampton Roads is if NC finishes all of their portion to the state line. Once I-87 is knocking on Chesapeake's doorstep, it might cause HR to put more pressure on the state to go ahead and upgrade US-17 to interstate standards and bring I-87 to I-64, possibly I-264 if it takes over I-464, which is what I'm hoping will happen.
I don't think it'll ever go into Virginia, and if it does, not past Ballahack Road.
Quote from: froggie on August 22, 2016, 05:45:37 PM
Nevermind that it wouldn't be VDOT but the city of Chesapeake being responsible.
If it becomes an Interstate it will most likely be taken over by the state (same for US 17). I don't know why neither is on the state-maintained arterial system in the first place, like US 58 west of Bowers Corner is.
Quote from: Takumi on August 22, 2016, 06:03:45 PM
I don't think it'll ever go into Virginia, and if it does, not past Ballahack Road.
Since interstates in most cases are required to end at a US Route or another interstate, it would have to be I-64 or bust. Then again, VDOT could decommission I-464 and re-designate it as I-87 and use that as a starting point, similar to what NCDOT is planning to do in Raleigh, but I don't see that happening, at least not until if/when I-87 makes it north of the state line.
Quote from: froggie on August 22, 2016, 05:45:37 PM
I wouldn't call it "minimal VDOT work" for VA 168. That southern 2 miles of VA 168 in Chesapeake has 3 signals, some private access, 2 No-Outlet road intersections, and a crapton of wetlands.
Nevermind that it wouldn't be VDOT but the city of Chesapeake being responsible.
Then there's the little matter of getting a corridor from US 17 over to NC/VA 168. That wouldn't be cheap either.
So you believe that I-87 should follow US-17 in VA then? I agree "minimal" wasn't the best word choice, I just think that if I-87 took the VA-168 route it would interest VDOT or the City of Chesapeake more as $$$ is always an issue.
As for those final 2 miles of VA-168, I-87 would leave the current VA-168 at Ballahack Road and turn south west to hook us with the current US-17 bypass near Elizabeth City to avoid all the businesses at the state line. Looks good on a map, but I'm sure there would be environmental issues.
QuoteSo you believe that I-87 should follow US-17 in VA then?
I don't believe I-87 should go into Virginia at all. But, if a freeway-grade facility WERE to some day (likely long after I'm dead) be warranted coming into South Hampton Roads from North Carolina, the US 17 corridor has several advantages over the VA 168 corridor.
Quote from: froggie on August 22, 2016, 10:21:41 PM
I don't believe I-87 should go into Virginia at all. But, if a freeway-grade facility WERE to some day (likely long after I'm dead) be warranted coming into South Hampton Roads from North Carolina, the US 17 corridor has several advantages over the VA 168 corridor.
I agree. I think it will only go to Elizabeth City in my lifetime.
A project on the I-87 corridor was included in NCDOT's draft 2018-2027 STIP.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12910 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12910)
QuoteProjects for coastal North Carolina include:
Converting the U.S. 17/Harvey Point Road/Wayne Fork Road intersection in Perquimans County to an interchange, improving travel along the Future Interstate 87 corridor
That one actually wouldn't be bad as a standalone project, as it eliminates one of the two signals on the Hertford bypass, and the busier of the two. It will be someone expensive, though, in part because there is an isolated house on the northbound US 17 side between the intersection and the Perquimans River bridge that would either need to be bought out or have a frontage road built to. I think it's more likely to be bought out.
New Future I-87 signs to go up along US 17 and that construction could start within a decade:
http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on October 25, 2016, 12:04:32 AM
New Future I-87 signs to go up along US 17 and that construction could start within a decade:
http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html)
QuoteConstruction could begin in the next eight years, said State Rep. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan. In the next decade, the segment from the Virginia line to Elizabeth City could be completed.
That's surprising. I figured NCDOT would concentrate on US-64 first since that would be the easiest (and cheapest) to upgrade. :hmm:
Maybe NCDOT thinks that if I-87 is on VA's doorstep, it might goad VDOT into building their part. If that's the case, I think NCDOT is in for a major disappointment if I-73 in VA is any indication...
Key word in that article: COULD. That's only if A) things go absolutely smoothly, B) the Army CoE grants the wetlands permits (remember that they denied Virginia's for their new US 460), and C) they line up the funding. And regarding the funding, don't forget that any upgrade-to-Interstate-87 projects would need to be ranked against other planned projects in NCDOT's ranking system.
Given the unlikelihood of all that happening, I'd argue that it won't happen within 10 years.
In the meantime, maybe North Carolina should focus on funding upgrades to the existing US 64 freeway. Once it is upgraded and signposted as Interstate 87, then maybe the proposed extension could possibly be funded and built.
Quote from: LM117 on October 25, 2016, 09:37:27 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 25, 2016, 12:04:32 AM
New Future I-87 signs to go up along US 17 and that construction could start within a decade:
http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html)
QuoteConstruction could begin in the next eight years, said State Rep. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan. In the next decade, the segment from the Virginia line to Elizabeth City could be completed.
That's surprising. I figured NCDOT would concentrate on US-64 first since that would be the easiest (and cheapest) to upgrade. :hmm:
Maybe NCDOT thinks that if I-87 is on VA's doorstep, it might goad VDOT into building their part. If that's the case, I think NCDOT is in for a major disappointment if I-73 in VA is any indication...
Doesn't mean it won't have upgrades here. Some of the upgrades to 17 are already planned.
I didn't see anything but tying existing projects and some wishful thinking.
Can anyone catch a shot of a Future Interstate 87 sign? I really want to see how it would be signed.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 10, 2016, 09:15:08 PM
Can anyone catch a shot of a Future Interstate 87 sign? I really want to see how it would be signed.
Do you have an imagination?
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2016, 09:31:56 PM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 10, 2016, 09:15:08 PM
Can anyone catch a shot of a Future Interstate 87 sign? I really want to see how it would be signed.
Do you have an imagination?
Yeah. I just want to see the signs up. I always really enjoy seeing them being up.
We may have to wait awhile for future signs to go up.
Spur to Greenville now Future Interstate 587!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19189.0
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2016/11/15/Pasquotank-seeks-immediate-funding-for-I-87-1.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2016/11/15/Pasquotank-seeks-immediate-funding-for-I-87-1.html)
QuotePasquotank County commissioners are calling for "immediate" funding to develop U.S. 17 in northeastern North Carolina into Interstate 87.
Commissioners adopted a resolution last week that also will be sent to county boards of commissioners in Currituck, Camden, Perquimans, Chowan, Gates and Hertford counties.
Congress last year approved the interstate's creation, but funding wasn't included for bringing roads from Raleigh to Norfolk up to interstate standards.
In adopting the resolution, Pasquotank Commissioner Lloyd Griffin III said, the hope is that counties in the region can set funding priorities for future road projects associated with the I-87 project, including the costly upgrades to portions of highways in Williamston, Windsor and the town of Hertford. There – as well as eventually at Morgans Corner, Commissioner Jeff Dixon noted – I-87 will have to constructed so that through traffic won't be halted by stoplights.
Counties working together to prioritize I-87 funding will be important, Board of Commissioners Chairman Joe Winslow added, because state road funding will easily go to other projects otherwise. The state's Strategic Mobility Formula scored I-87-related projects poorly, meaning they're a low state priority, earlier this year.
Winslow said local I-87 upgrades would be uniquely beneficial to the region.
"The most benefit to the most counties in the most economic way is this particular resolution, which is opening up northeastern North Carolina," Winslow said.
Pasquotank's resolution notes the U.S. 17 upgrades would create "synergy" with the expansion of a Foreign Trade Zone from Virginia's ports.
Though supporting the resolution, Dixon questioned other counties' commitment to the resolution, speculating they might prioritize local projects over I-87 development. Gates and Hertford counties have been pushing for upgrades to U.S. Highway 158 and U.S. Highway 13 for years, he noted.
Winslow said he had spoken with commissioners in other counties, and heard no objections to the resolution.
Also present for Monday's meeting were Cathy Davison, executive director of the Albemarle Commission, a regional economic development agency, and Angela Welsh, director of the Albemarle Rural Planning Organization. Supporting the resolution, Davison noted Pasquotank had available land that companies will need for expanding operations near Virginia's ports.
"Your industrial park is closer to the port than the closest vacant land in Virginia," Davison said.
So far, the state has funded feasibility studies for U.S. 17 and U.S. 64 to plan development of the I-87 corridor.
Quote"Your industrial park is closer to the port than the closest vacant land in Virginia," Davison said.
This statement from the article is flat out false. Plenty of empty land in Suffolk and Chesapeake, some of which I believe is even zoned industrial, that is closer to the port than any NC industrial park.
Immediate funding? Impatient, aren't we Pasquotank County? If only other DOTs could commit to funding projects with such speed and urgency.
Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2016, 07:44:05 AM
Quote"Your industrial park is closer to the port than the closest vacant land in Virginia," Davison said.
This statement from the article is flat out false. Plenty of empty land in Suffolk and Chesapeake, some of which I believe is even zoned industrial, that is closer to the port than any NC industrial park.
The land between US 17 and Chesapeake Regional Airport is zoned light industrial and is essentially empty. Guess she's never driven from Elizabeth City to Deep Creek before...
Land zoned for light industrial is easy to come by. Land for heavy manufacturing or other high-impact industry is NOT. That may be what they're talking about here.
In which case I'm still calling shenanigans, as there is still plenty of available heavy industrial land much closer to the port than E-City, including the former Ford plant right across from downtown Norfolk. Can't get much closer than that..
It's a lot harder to develop on brownfields and derelict industrial buildings than greenfield land. Old industrial sites can require hundred million dollar cleanups that take a year or more. That said, it does sound odd that you would have to go that far to find ANYTHING....
LGL44VL
I'm way behind on this story, but has it been mentioned that this eerily bears out old MTR fictional mutterings about running I-87 down the Garden State Parkway, into the Delmarva, and into Hampton Roads?
Regardless, I don't like the precedent for duplicate numbers so close (and I'm a fairly loose constructionist on numbering). But we live in the era of "If I can decide to believe something and say it, it can be right and good and true," so old rules be damned.
^ MTR wasn't specifically mentioned, but yes there was conversation amongst some about how to connect the two I-87's....
Heck, speculation from NCDOT about such things is the very reason why they requested an odd number to begin with! Maybe it's also why AASHTO changed I-89 to I-87?
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2016, 05:08:31 PM
Heck, speculation from NCDOT about such things is the very reason why they requested an odd number to begin with! Maybe it's also why AASHTO changed I-89 to I-87?
IMHO we'll never see the two I-87's joined, but I'm sure it will be a topic for the forum for years to come.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 04, 2016, 06:31:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2016, 05:08:31 PM
Heck, speculation from NCDOT about such things is the very reason why they requested an odd number to begin with! Maybe it's also why AASHTO changed I-89 to I-87?
IMHO we'll never see the two I-87's joined, but I'm sure it will be a topic for the forum for years to come.
This was also floated by fantasizers as I-101.
Funny footnote: these were among the first things I read on MTR and the roadgeek sites of the day and I did not, in fact, know fictional proposals were offered there in such detail. I repeated these "plans" to others before realizing they were imaginary.
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2016, 05:08:31 PM
Heck, speculation from NCDOT about such things is the very reason why they requested an odd number to begin with! Maybe it's also why AASHTO changed I-89 to I-87?
NCDOT, back when the numbers had yet to be finalized, cited conflict with state routes as the rationale for their initial choice of I-89, stating that all the available even numbers above 40 were state highways in the adjacent areas (their original choice of I-36 for the US 70 corridor also followed this logic). AASHTO basically told them that internal conflicts wouldn't rationalize the out-of-grid selection of "36" for the other corridor and basically
assigned them I-42, even with NC 42 crossing the corridor in question. Their rationale for changing 89 to 87 was arcane at best (it "lined up better longitudinally with the existing I-87") -- why, considering what they did with I-42, they didn't throw 46, 54, or another number at the situation remains perplexing. A few weeks ago I stumbled across something that claimed the "87" number was selected for regional historical significance -- something important happened in 1687, something else in 1787 (OK, the U.S. Constitution was adopted, so that's at least genuine if a bit obvious), and something else in 1887 -- it seems a little like there's a bit of "reaching" to rationalize a decision that was based upon a discarded theory (the conflict with state highways having primacy).
If you get the impression that I consider 87 to be an ill-conceived designation for this route, you are absolutely correct! Will we all have to live with it? Probably -- but that doesn't mean we can't grouse a bit!
Quote from: sparker on December 05, 2016, 06:10:25 AMA few weeks ago I stumbled across something that claimed the "87" number was selected for regional historical significance -- something important happened in 1687, something else in 1787 (OK, the U.S. Constitution was adopted, so that's at least genuine if a bit obvious), and something else in 1887 -- it seems a little like there's a bit of "reaching" to rationalize a decision that was based upon a discarded theory (the conflict with state highways having primacy.
That was an article just giving spin for I-87. It wasn't like they were gonna announce that the only reason I-87 was chosen was because I-89 got rejected.
Quote from: LM117 on December 05, 2016, 07:39:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 05, 2016, 06:10:25 AMA few weeks ago I stumbled across something that claimed the "87" number was selected for regional historical significance -- something important happened in 1687, something else in 1787 (OK, the U.S. Constitution was adopted, so that's at least genuine if a bit obvious), and something else in 1887 -- it seems a little like there's a bit of "reaching" to rationalize a decision that was based upon a discarded theory (the conflict with state highways having primacy.
That was an article just giving spin for I-87. It wasn't like they were gonna announce that the only reason I-87 was chosen was because I-89 got rejected.
"Yeah....umm....the number 87 was chosen because a lot of stuff happened around here in years ending in 87. Not much happened in '89' years.....that's the ticket!"
I would have preferred an even second digit for this freeway, since it currently goes more east-west than north-south. Only if Interstate 87 is extended in a north-south fashion north of Williamston will this be a legitimate Interstate with an odd second digit.
I guess AASHTO must have thought NCDOT had a logical reason for choosing an odd number instead of accepting that NC does not give a **** about the interstate numbering system. They're just like California: too cheap to renumber a state route, so they expect the more important system to bend to their whims. That's not how it should work; the more important system should get numbering priority. Thus, US routes, should bend to the whims of the interstates, and state routes should bend to the whims of both, and counties getting the scraps of whatever is left. It's a shame that we've been doing the opposite since the inception of the interstate system.
Any odd number for a Norfolk to Raleigh route is ridiculous no matter what excuse officials want to put out there. And on top of that if an interstate corridor was to actually happen from Wilmington (Delaware) southward, what sense would it make to have it terminate at Raleigh?? If anything it should terminate at I-95 in southern Georgia or at the very least South Carolina. Either way only an even numbered interstate makes sense for the US 64 corridor
Quote from: plain on December 05, 2016, 06:42:19 PM
Any odd number for a Norfolk to Raleigh route is ridiculous no matter what excuse officials want to put out there. And on top of that if an interstate corridor was to actually happen from Wilmington (Delaware) southward, what sense would it make to have it terminate at Raleigh?? If anything it should terminate at I-95 in southern Georgia or at the very least South Carolina. Either way only an even numbered interstate makes sense for the US 64 corridor
I agree on that.. End it just north of Savannah.. Once in Georgia i95 is pretty much right on the coast, in some places i95 is the last road before the ocean
LGMS428
Quote from: jwolfer on December 05, 2016, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: plain on December 05, 2016, 06:42:19 PM
Any odd number for a Norfolk to Raleigh route is ridiculous no matter what excuse officials want to put out there. And on top of that if an interstate corridor was to actually happen from Wilmington (Delaware) southward, what sense would it make to have it terminate at Raleigh?? If anything it should terminate at I-95 in southern Georgia or at the very least South Carolina. Either way only an even numbered interstate makes sense for the US 64 corridor
I agree on that.. End it just north of Savannah.. Once in Georgia i95 is pretty much right on the coast, in some places i95 is the last road before the ocean
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf)
I'm honestly all for throwing an interstate designation on this corridor, but IMHO Interstate 87 is not the right number.
I initially was thinking Interstate 46 or Interstate 48 would be a good choice. However, US Highway 48 runs through Virginia, so the number 48 is out of the question (the last thing we need is another interstate in NC like 74 that violates the interstate and US highway numbering rules). That leaves us with 46. I think an Interstate 46 designation would work perfectly fine for this corridor, as it is more east-west than it is north-south, even if the interstate does make it to Virginia.
In addition to this, that means that the proposed I-587 on the US 264 corridor would work perfectly fine as an odd I-x46 interstate designation.
I honestly don't see why North Carolina needs to further cluster up their future interstate system. I love the idea, just not the numbering.
What difference does it make? Exactly zero people outside of this forum care whether 87 is the 'right' number for the road. The grid was only relevant when deciding the numbers for the initial routes.
I agree. It could be Interstate 90210 and I doubt there would be much protest.
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 10, 2017, 02:02:54 PM
What difference does it make? Exactly zero people outside of this forum care whether 87 is the 'right' number for the road. The grid was only relevant when deciding the numbers for the initial routes.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2017, 04:09:24 PM
I agree. It could be Interstate 90210 and I doubt there would be much protest.
You're both right. Unfortunately, I don't think theres much we can do about the numbering, which means to everyone outside this forum, my Interstate 46 suggestion is probably meaningless and would be to no avail. With that said, I have come up with a possible solution to fix up this I-87 stuff (which, I-87
isn't breaking any rules that I know of, I just personally don't think it is the best fit for this corridor) in the General Highway Talk - Duplicate Interstates thread:
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 12, 2017, 12:42:29 PM
With that said, it sounds like we will have to accept the Interstate 87 numbering, and with that said, I would be all for extending this new I-87 corridor north onto the Delmarva Peninsula, up to Wilmington, Delaware, then possibly have a brief concurrency with I-95 then I-295 into New Jersey, then have I-87 routed along the New Jersey Turnpike and later concurrent with I-95 along it until reaching New York City, and reaching the current, northern Interstate 87. Should that happen, the southernmost section of current I-87 from I-95 to I-278 could be an unused even I-x87 interstate designation, such like that of how I-75 in downtown Knoxville, Tennessee became Interstate 275. That might potentially sound wacky - possibly either like a really good idea or a really bad idea. But it would connect the two I-87s. While a lot of I-87 would be out of the grid, its southernmost part in North Carolina between Raleigh and I-95, and all of the current, northern I-87 in New York would not be. This could also work since it looks like they aren't going to change the numbering of I-97 and I-99 (which are both badly numbered, but that we have all long accepted, besides our fantasizing), and should a proposed Interstate 101 still come into play, it could connect I-87 in NC to I-95 in GA or SC, serving the east coast in that region. That is the best way (that I know of) we could modify the creation of this southern, duplicate Interstate 87.
Put your second paragraph in Fictional Highways. I doubt the two Interstate 87s will ever be connected. Just like the two 74s, the two 76s, the two 84s, the two 86s, and the two 88s.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 12, 2017, 05:41:17 PM
Put your second paragraph in Fictional Highways. I doubt the two Interstate 87s will ever be connected. Just like the two 74s, the two 76s, the two 84s, the two 86s, and the two 88s.
...and the two 99s. :D
and the four I-69s (MI-IN, KY, TN-MS, TX). OK, the northern two might get joined together...
Oh right, can't forget those. However, those two routes have a higher likelihood of perhaps ultimately being connected, than the other ones mentioned.
Mississippi's portion of I-69 and the Great River Bridge are both long shots of ever getting built any time soon. I-69 in Arkansas and Louisiana will only get short segments completed in a few spots over the next 10-20 years.
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 07:58:09 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 12, 2017, 05:41:17 PM
Put your second paragraph in Fictional Highways. I doubt the two Interstate 87s will ever be connected. Just like the two 74s, the two 76s, the two 84s, the two 86s, and the two 88s.
...and the two 99s. :D
Quote from: english si on January 13, 2017, 09:11:35 AM
and the four I-69s (MI-IN, KY, TN-MS, TX). OK, the northern two might get joined together...
...(ahem) and the two I-49s (AR), at least until that section in the middle gets built.
Apparently, the FHWA has approved the decommissioning of I-495 between I-440 and I-540 and approved the establishment of I-87 from I-40 in Raleigh (running with with I-440 for its first 2.9 miles) 12.9 miles to the end of the Knightdale Bypass at US 64 Business. This is now listed in the updated FHWA Table 1 -Main Routes of the Interstate System, updated on Feb. 21:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)
(I-495 is no longer listed for North Carolina on Table 2)
And, not related to I-87, but I-14 has been added for Texas totaling 25.1 miles.
I-495 is still listed in Tables 3 & 4 for NC.
Nothing new here (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Route-Changes.aspx#InplviewHash375b26b0-7df8-41aa-be6e-fc71a9417a28=SortField%3DChange_x0020_One-SortDir%3DAsc-WebPartID%3D%7B375B26B0--7DF8--41AA--BE6E--FC71A9417A28%7D), either.
Sooooo....which is it? FHWA says the Knightdale Bypass and a bit of I-440 is in the Interstate system as I-87 in Tables 1 & 4, I-495 isn't listed on Table 2 but is on Tables 3 & 4, and according to NCDOT I-87 doesn't exist yet and there's been no announcement by them concerning I-495 and I-87 recently. There's also been no applications submitted by NCDOT to AASHTO or FHWA asking for I-495's removal and/or permission to put up I-87 shields.
Is FHWA smoking crack?
We don't know if there have been applications submitted. Presumably there have been, but if so, the public doesn't have access to them.
Quote from: bob7374 on March 19, 2017, 11:49:07 PM
Apparently, the FHWA has approved the decommissioning of I-495 between I-440 and I-540 and approved the establishment of I-87 from I-40 in Raleigh (running with with I-440 for its first 2.9 miles) 12.9 miles to the end of the Knightdale Bypass at US 64 Business. This is now listed in the updated FHWA Table 1 -Main Routes of the Interstate System, updated on Feb. 21:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)
(I-495 is no longer listed for North Carolina on Table 2)
Given at least FHWA's official recognition of I-87 in NC, I have created a new NC Future Interstates page based on my previous I-495 page (I've kept the I-495 page up, for now, to document the history of the short-lived route). The link:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html)
Maybe the 495 designation should not have been issued, if it was to replaced by a 2-digit Interstate designation only a few years after it was posted. And since 495 will now never reach 95, maybe it should have been an x-40 Interstate spur (although there aren't a lot of numbers to choose from anymore, if they went that route).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2017, 04:45:14 PM
Maybe the 495 designation should not have been issued, if it was to replaced by a 2-digit Interstate designation only a few years after it was posted. And since 495 will now never reach 95, maybe it should have been an x-40 Interstate spur (although there aren't a lot of numbers to choose from anymore, if they went that route).
Well, there still aren't any I-340's anywhere! But IIRC, the "495" designation was specifically selected by Raleigh metro as an indicator that the route was intended to serve as an "umbilical" between itself and the I-95 corridor -- that although removed from the actual 95 alignment by a few dozen miles, the city was still functionally served by it.
When NCDOT requested I-495, they didn't anticipate the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor being signed into law as quick as it did. They sent an application to FHWA requesting Future I-44 for US-64/17 back in 2012, but it was presumably denied since the route wasn't Congressionally designated and that there was no way NCDOT could meet the 25-year deadline for upgrading the entire corridor to interstate standards unless a huge pile of cash fell in their lap.
I-495 was "Plan B" when I-44 didn't pan out since US-64 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount could easily be upgraded within a 25-year period.
NCDOT swung for the fences with I-44, struck out, used I-495 as a fallback & successfully sold it as a corridor connecting Raleigh to I-95, then got trolled by the FAST Act after I-495 shields went up. Hello I-87. Goodbye I-495.
If an even number was acceptable before, why wasn't it acceptable now?
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2017, 07:01:34 PM
If an even number was acceptable before, why wasn't it acceptable now?
My guess is it's for the same reason I-495 is signed N/S rather than E/W: To give Raleigh a "N/S" connection to I-95 and the Northeast while also having an interstate connection to Hampton Roads.
It's also possible that VDOT wanted an odd number, though I doubt that's the case. VA isn't keen on new interstates, especially if I-73 is any indication. There has been no mention of I-87 AT ALL by VDOT. Now, if it benefited Richmond or NoVA, it would probably be different. That being said, I see no hurry for VA to upgrade US-17. There are more important projects in Hampton Roads at the moment.
Just started updating Wikipedia. Updated the I-495 page. God, this will be a long process. I'm done for now. Glad that I-87 is designated. Get I-42 designated along the beginning of its route.
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2017, 05:42:26 PM
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?
For US 70/I-42 there are web sites with full information:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70corridor/
http://www.super70corridor.com/
I don't think NCDOT has a page yet for I-87 upgrades.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2017, 05:42:26 PM
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?
The draft 2017-27 STIP (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/Draft%202017-2027%20STIP.pdf) says interstate from Williamston to Virginia is undergoing a feasibility study. It also says the same about upgrading US 64 from Wake County to Williamston.
There are however projects that might contribute to the conversion: Interchanges with US 17 and Perquimans SR 1300 and Perquimans SR 1336/1338. Construction slated to start in FY 2025 and 2026 respectively. US 64 bridge widening at Nash SR 1603 (FY 2025 start)
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on March 30, 2017, 10:33:04 AM
Just started updating Wikipedia. Updated the I-495 page. God, this will be a long process. I'm done for now. Glad that I-87 is designated. Get I-42 designated along the beginning of its route.
I reversed them too, because you are jumping the gun. There are no I-87 guide signs posted, only the "Future" signs; I-495 is still active designation in the state. Until NCDOT makes the changes, the I-495 article should remain.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2017, 05:42:26 PM
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?
US 64 east of the US 258 interchange in Tarboro and all the way to US 17 is already at Interstate standards (shoulders, etc.); it was completed after the 1991 ISTEA act designated it a high-priority corridor (#13). Whether or not that in itself prompted the upgrade of physical standards on that section is a matter of speculation at this point -- but it's "ready to go". Nevertheless, there's no indication that it will receive advanced signage; most likely it'll have to wait until the remainder of the route from Knightdale to Tarboro is brought up to spec.
I wonder if there's any chance that I-87 will be extended in the future south of Raleigh; the most logical place would be along the US 1 corridor. I've heard that there is serious local opposition to making US 1 an expressway all the way to Rockingham, who knows if that will change if the possibility of it becoming an interstate gets thrown into the mix.
The most logical place for it to go south of there would be down to I-20 at Camden, but since South Carolina can't seem to get I-73 built to Myrtle Beach, the chances of something like that happening would be remote at best.
I'd support making US 1 a southern extension of Interstate 87. I doubt it will happen, though.
I-87 isn't going to South Carolina. SC does not play well with others (if I-20 & I-74 is any indication) and building I-87 in SC would not be easy, if not costly.
I-87 going to Rockingham? Maybe, considering that NCDOT once tried to get US-1 between I-40/440 and Sanford designated as I-140.
I-87 connecting to I-20? Not a chance.
I-73 pretty much has south of Rockingham covered - the place to go with hypothetical I-87 'south' of Rockingham is Charlotte.
SC isn't going to do anything. Another option is to use I-42 instead, routing it via the southern portion of 540 (once built), US-1 to Rockingham and US-74 to Charlotte. An E-W number makes more sense if they go that route.
Someday, NC wants an US 64 freeway from Raleigh to Mocksville, save 42 for that.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 03, 2017, 11:15:10 PM
Someday, NC wants an US 64 freeway from Raleigh to Mocksville, save 42 for that.
Making US 64 an expressway would be a useful bypass of Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and Durham for I-40 traffic, and would be a logical westward extension of I-42. I-36 or I-38 would be the natural numbering for a US 74 expressway from I-26 to Wilmington, as long as the overlap with I-74 wasn't too much.
AASHTO has approved NCDOT's request to eliminate I-495 and Future I-495 between I-440 and I-95, paving way for I-87 (and Future I-87):
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%2001-Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2017.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%2001-Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2017.pdf)
Quote from: bob7374 on June 09, 2017, 11:46:33 AM
AASHTO has approved NCDOT's request to eliminate I-495 and Future I-495 between I-440 and I-95, paving way for I-87 (and Future I-87):
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%2001-Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2017.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%2001-Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2017.pdf)
It also appears that I-440 isn't going anywhere, which means I-87 & I-440 will be concurrent.
Given NCDOT's past precedent, that could easily change...
US 64 west of Apex would be easy to convert to an expressway or freeway but interstate standards might be difficult due to stuff like grades and vertical curvature of hill crests. There would be a lot of closures for scraping and blasting in a bunch of places along that route.
Do Interstate 440 and future Interstate 87 really have to be concurrent between Exits 14 and 16? I wouldn't agree. Then again, it wouldn't be unprecedented. Interstate 84 and Interstate 380 in Pennsylvania are co-designated with one another to a common terminus at Interstate 81, but likely only because Interstate 380 was originally Interstate 81S, then Interstate 81E. Also Interstate 84 was to have continued west of existing 380 to meet 81 in another location. Back to the topic at hand, I believe that an 87/440 duplex is unnecessary.
Not only do I think that a 440/87 concurrency is unnecessary, I'd go a step further and say that I-87 should've ended at I-440 just like I-495 did, but that ship has sailed.
Quote from: froggie on June 09, 2017, 01:38:12 PM
Given NCDOT's past precedent, that could easily change...
True, but if they really wanted to get rid of I-440 anytime soon, it might've been better to decommission it at the same time as I-495. Kill two birds with one stone...or in this case, two I-shields with one AASHTO meeting.
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2017, 05:57:31 PM
Not only do I think that a 440/87 concurrency is unnecessary, I'd go a step further and say that I-87 should've ended at I-440 just like I-495 did, but that ship has sailed.
Forum members like to be tidy about these things, I know, but drivers in the Raleigh area will want to have the concurrence. I-440 is the Raleigh Beltline; it needs to meet I-40 at both ends. I-87 will take over from US 64 as the route east; it needs to begin at I-40.
What is a "beltline"? If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC. Or they could just do the Harrisburg solution an install signs saying "Raleigh Beltline" along the routes without overlaps. Route names and numbers don't necessarily need to have 1:1 correspondence; see NYC, where they're two completely independent systems.
And yes, I-87 needs to end at I-40. It's a 2di after all, even though IMO I-495 from I-440 to I-95 was perfectly adequate.
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:47:19 PM
What is a "beltline"? If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC.
Actually it originally did for awhile but it was removed from the I-40 portion in 2008 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2008_11_10.pdf). It also had INNER and OUTER designations but is now just EAST-WEST. (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-40-and-i-440-signage-changes-around.html)
My NC knowledge is not well enough to know why they chose Beltline, but at one point even US 70, US 401, and NC 50 (I believe that Adam Prince had something on this on the defunct Gribblenation somewhere) were put on it instead of going through downtown Raleigh and to me it just looked like a convoluted mess.
Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2017, 02:07:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2017, 05:42:26 PM
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?
US 64 east of the US 258 interchange in Tarboro and all the way to US 17 is already at Interstate standards (shoulders, etc.); it was completed after the 1991 ISTEA act designated it a high-priority corridor (#13). Whether or not that in itself prompted the upgrade of physical standards on that section is a matter of speculation at this point -- but it's "ready to go". Nevertheless, there's no indication that it will receive advanced signage; most likely it'll have to wait until the remainder of the route from Knightdale to Tarboro is brought up to spec.
Since US 70 already follows the same route as I-40 west of Durham, a freeway upgrade isn't really necessary.
Quote from: Finrod on June 03, 2017, 04:35:23 PM
I wonder if there's any chance that I-87 will be extended in the future south of Raleigh; the most logical place would be along the US 1 corridor. I've heard that there is serious local opposition to making US 1 an expressway all the way to Rockingham, who knows if that will change if the possibility of it becoming an interstate gets thrown into the mix.
The most logical place for it to go south of there would be down to I-20 at Camden, but since South Carolina can't seem to get I-73 built to Myrtle Beach, the chances of something like that happening would be remote at best.
I'd rather just stop it at Rockingham, and make a complete freeway bypass of I-85 between Henderson and Charlotte (with upgraded portions of US 1 between Henderson and Raleigh and US 74 west of Rockingham to such).
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:47:19 PMAnd yes, I-87 needs to end at I-40. It's a 2di after all, even though IMO I-495 from I-440 to I-95 was perfectly adequate.
I-87 was cooked up to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. The "Raleigh-Norfolk" reasoning was basically used as a means to an end. It's already helped spawn Future I-587, linking Greenville to I-95 and Raleigh, and there's a push to have the NC-11/US-13 corridor between US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel become an interstate. It's already been introduced in Congress once shortly before last year's elections and while it didn't get anywhere, the idea is still alive and well.
https://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation (https://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation)
Raleigh was more than happy to push for it because it linked the city to I-95, and because there's currently little chance of US-1 becoming an interstate between I-540 and I-85 in Henderson.
Quote from: LM117 on June 11, 2017, 05:27:44 AM
... and there's a push to have the NC-11/US-13 corridor between US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel become an interstate.
If it wasn't for the short distance, this would be the correct spot in the grid for I-97 or I-99.
Quote from: Finrod on June 13, 2017, 01:27:59 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 11, 2017, 05:27:44 AM
... and there's a push to have the NC-11/US-13 corridor between US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel become an interstate.
If it wasn't for the short distance, this would be the correct spot in the grid for I-97 or I-99.
I-97 was never off-grid to begin with.
Quote from: 1 on June 13, 2017, 01:46:59 PM
Quote from: Finrod on June 13, 2017, 01:27:59 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 11, 2017, 05:27:44 AM
... and there's a push to have the NC-11/US-13 corridor between US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel become an interstate.
If it wasn't for the short distance, this would be the correct spot in the grid for I-97 or I-99.
I-97 was never off-grid to begin with.
If the designation happens, it will most likely be another I-x87, since it's purpose is to connect Kinston's Global Transpark and Greenville to Hampton Roads. That's the final leg of the "Quad East" interstate idea they've been pushing since 2013.
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:47:19 PM
What is a "beltline"? If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC. Or they could just do the Harrisburg solution an install signs saying "Raleigh Beltline" along the routes without overlaps. Route names and numbers don't necessarily need to have 1:1 correspondence; see NYC, where they're two completely independent systems.
And yes, I-87 needs to end at I-40. It's a 2di after all, even though IMO I-495 from I-440 to I-95 was perfectly adequate.
The name Raleigh Beltline dates back to the early 1950s; this may be before the term beltway became common. Wikipedia has a few other examples of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltline
The major freeway along the south and west sides of the Madison area (US 12/14/18/151) is known as The Beltline. It's hard to believe today that when the roadway first opened in 1951, it was a two-lane highway with at-grade intersections.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 10, 2017, 08:27:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:47:19 PM
What is a "beltline"? If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC.
Actually it originally did for awhile but it was removed from the I-40 portion in 2008 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2008_11_10.pdf). It also had INNER and OUTER designations but is now just EAST-WEST. (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-40-and-i-440-signage-changes-around.html)
My NC knowledge is not well enough to know why they chose Beltline, but at one point even US 70, US 401, and NC 50 (I believe that Adam Prince had something on this on the defunct Gribblenation somewhere) were put on it instead of going through downtown Raleigh and to me it just looked like a convoluted mess.
Here's the archive link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160413080339/http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/raleigh/beltline.html
I haven't migrated this page to Sure, Why Not as there are some photos and other information I have that would expand the feature.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 13, 2017, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:47:19 PM
What is a "beltline"? If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC. Or they could just do the Harrisburg solution an install signs saying "Raleigh Beltline" along the routes without overlaps. Route names and numbers don't necessarily need to have 1:1 correspondence; see NYC, where they're two completely independent systems.
The name Raleigh Beltline dates back to the early 1950s; this may be before the term beltway became common. Wikipedia has a few other examples of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltline
I have wondered about the term "beltline" as well. Might be an appropriate term for a partial beltway bypass, which was what the Raleigh Beltline was when first built as a northern bypass in the 1950s. The southern portion was built in the 1980s.
Richmond, VA has the I-195 Beltline Expressway, an official name but one that has been seldom used by the public. That name came from the depressed Beltline Railroad that I-195 was built around.
"The present location of I-195 was fixed, unknowingly, 81 years before Mr. Volpe's action. The north-south corridor it now occupies was selected by the R.F.& P. R.R. [Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad] in 1888 for its new "James River Branch (Beltline)" which was to handle north-south freight traffic."
"World War I conditions during this period, and drainage problems, hampered the excavation and bridge construction, but the double-tracked, depressed Beltline Railroad was opened simultaneously with the opening of the new Broad Street Station, on January 6, 1919."
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I195_VA.html
Google Maps is smoking weed again. US-64 between I-440 and I-95 is labled as I-87. They also took it a step further and have I-87 concurrent with I-40, ending at the I-440/US-1 interchange in Cary. :pan:
Apparently, Google Maps either can see into the future or this is a future map brought back to our time. :spin:
I bet NC state officials submitted to Google that I-87 and I-587 be labeled. Everyone uses GPS nowadays, and it will cause folks to start calling the roads by their interstate number. Eventually the new numbers will become mainstream, and they won't even have to officially designate them.
Quote from: fillup420 on June 17, 2017, 12:08:13 PM
I bet NC state officials AARoads forum users submitted to Google that I-87 and I-587 be labeled.
Fixed. Not specific to these particular roads, but I always find it funny when I read on here something like "Hey look! They labeled new roads on Google Maps", as if it wasn't somebody from this very forum who had something to do with getting it changed - especially in advance of it being official.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 17, 2017, 12:45:32 PM
Fixed. Not specific to these particular roads, but I always find it funny when I read on here something like "Hey look! They labeled new roads on Google Maps", as if it wasn't somebody from this very forum who had something to do with getting it changed - especially in advance of it being official.
True, I didn't even think of it being anyone on here haha
I would think someone from here would wait for it to be officially designated, instead of just "future".
Quote from: fillup420 on June 17, 2017, 12:50:54 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 17, 2017, 12:45:32 PM
Fixed. Not specific to these particular roads, but I always find it funny when I read on here something like "Hey look! They labeled new roads on Google Maps", as if it wasn't somebody from this very forum who had something to do with getting it changed - especially in advance of it being official.
True, I didn't even think of it being anyone on here haha
Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2017, 09:58:49 PM
I would think someone from here would wait for it to be officially designated, instead of just "future".
There
are a few "wishful thinkers" among the posters here; maybe this is just a playful prank to see how many of us actually notice the Google "designation" and comment on it. Pretty silly & pointless in any case. More telling will be to see how long the designation stays up until someone edits it out!
Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2017, 09:58:49 PM
I would think someone from here would wait for it to be officially designated, instead of just "future".
Aren't there future signs? Due to that a regular driver might say "this is I-87".
Quote from: english si on June 18, 2017, 03:41:22 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2017, 09:58:49 PM
I would think someone from here would wait for it to be officially designated, instead of just "future".
Aren't there future signs? Due to that a regular driver might say "this is I-87".
I drove I-495 between I-440 and I-540 on Thursday. I-495 fully posted. No I-87 signage of any kind.
I-87 Future corridor signs exist on US 17 in the Elizabeth City area...not sure if they have gone up anywhere on US 64 east of I-95 or not...
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2017, 10:26:42 AM
I drove I-495 between I-440 and I-540 on Thursday. I-495 fully posted. No I-87 signage of any kind.
I-495 was just recently decommissioned by AASHTO last month, so it might be a while before I-87 replaces I-495. NCDOT will probably do it sometime this summer.
QuoteI-87 Future corridor signs exist on US 17 in the Elizabeth City area...not sure if they have gone up anywhere on US 64 east of I-95 or not...
They have.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/300176946738649?view=permalink&id=1314095395346794&refid=18&_ft_=qid.6433047010773380868%3Amf_story_key.1314095395346794%3Atop_level_post_id.1314095395346794%3Atl_objid.1314095395346794&__tn__=%2As (https://m.facebook.com/groups/300176946738649?view=permalink&id=1314095395346794&refid=18&_ft_=qid.6433047010773380868%3Amf_story_key.1314095395346794%3Atop_level_post_id.1314095395346794%3Atl_objid.1314095395346794&__tn__=%2As)
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2017, 10:26:42 AM
I-87 Future corridor signs exist on US 17 in the Elizabeth City area...not sure if they have gone up anywhere on US 64 east of I-95 or not...
They are also posted on the bypass around Edenton.
As I said, unless they figure out a way to connect this to New York, there will be three badly botched interstates in the Tar Heel State: I-87, I-74 and I-73. Well, other than the fact that I-73 is completely east of I-77 (and I-75 for that matter), I'm not bothered by it.
The cost of upgrading the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel to interstate standards and the extremely environmentally sensitive region known as the Eastern Shore of VA, along with it's notoriously hardcore NIMBY residents (especially those in Northampton County), guarantees that I-87 will never go beyond Norfolk, and that's assuming VA even builds their part of I-87 (which I doubt).
^ What LM117 said. And on that same note, the prevalent lowlands/wetlands along the Dismal Swamp Canal corridor will make upgrading US 17 between E-City and Dominion Blvd very challenging, expensive, and likely not to happen. It should also be noted that the major bridges along US 17 between Williamston and E-City are *NOT* Interstate standard and would also be very expensive to upgrade. Also a lot of wetlands in the Roanoke River valley between Williamston and Windsor.
For these reasons, I don't see I-87 even going past Williamston, let alone Norfolk.
Is I-87 in Virginia supposed to use the VA 168 Chesapeake Expressway or an upgraded US 17? Because it would seem that using VA 168 would require a lot less construction than using US 17.
It would actually require a lot more as you'd have to find a way to get a new alignment route from US 17 to NC/VA 168.
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 11:10:29 AM
^ What LM117 said. And on that same note, the prevalent lowlands/wetlands along the Dismal Swamp Canal corridor will make upgrading US 17 between E-City and Dominion Blvd very challenging, expensive, and likely not to happen. It should also be noted that the major bridges along US 17 between Williamston and E-City are *NOT* Interstate standard and would also be very expensive to upgrade. Also a lot of wetlands in the Roanoke River valley between Williamston and Windsor.
For these reasons, I don't see I-87 even going past Williamston, let alone Norfolk.
I am opposed to this I-87, there is about 100 miles of US-17 between Williamston and Dominion Blvd., and the vast majority of the route would need to be on new location, and in addition to numerous environmentally sensitive areas, we're looking at $30 million or more per mile for rural Interstate construction. So $3 billion or more, and that doesn't include the costs of upgrades from Williamston to Raleigh.
The existing US-64 and US-17 highway is already a decent 4-lane divided interregional highway that serves the corridor well. There is nothing in that corridor that would warrant an Interstate highway other than the endpoints (R-D and H.R.), and the route is 25 miles longer than the current I-95 and US-58 routing, so this I-87 really isn't workable to connect the end points either.
As I have mentioned in other posts there are already some upgrades in planning on US-58.
Very bad idea this I-87, IMHO.
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 11:50:01 AM
It would actually require a lot more as you'd have to find a way to get a new alignment route from US 17 to NC/VA 168.
A lot less construction in VA though!
Depends on how they routed such an alignment.
In Virginia the US 17 corridor would definitely be the preferred alignment if they really insist on building this stupid thing.
Agreed with LM117 and froggie on their points.
Really I'm starting to think this is all just an attempt by NC to get federal funding to rehabilitate US 64...
It's not. Because Future Interstate designation does not give access to any additional pots of Federal funding. If anything, given Federal law (mostly) and FHWA policy (a little), what this will do is force NCDOT to spend Federal funding on US 64 that they now won't have for other corridors, because it comes from their normal Federal highway funding allotment.
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 02:03:42 PM
It's not. Because Future Interstate designation does not give access to any additional pots of Federal funding. If anything, given Federal law (mostly) and FHWA policy (a little), what this will do is force NCDOT to spend Federal funding on US 64 that they now won't have for other corridors, because it comes from their normal Federal highway funding allotment.
To add to this, the real reason I-87 was heavily pushed is to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virgina. Despite the official spin regarding the idea of linking Raleigh and Norfolk, it was done to benefit eastern NC. I-87's routing makes this blatantly obvious. As I've mentioned before, it's already spawned I-587, which serves Wilson & Greenville, and there's still the push to turn the NC-11/US-13 corridor between Kinston and Bethel into an interstate, the idea being to link the Global Transpark and Greenville to Hampton Roads.
Of all the future interstates in eastern NC, I-42 and I-795's extension to I-40 should be top priority IMO. Nearly half of I-87's corridor is already a freeway and the entire length of Future I-587 is a freeway. Meanwhile, US-70 carries a good deal of truck traffic as well as regional & tourist traffic and the parts of US-70 that have not yet been upgraded or bypassed have a lot of safety issues. US-117 has also seen an increase in trucks lately, especially since the Enviva wood pellet manufacturing plant opened near I-40 at Exit 355. US-117 doesn't have as many safety issues as US-70, but it can get pretty congested between the Mar-Mac area of Goldsboro and I-795, which would be bypassed by I-795's extension. The current bridges over the Neuse River tend to get flooded out easily and having the new alignment section of I-795 provide a second crossing of Neuse River would be ideal and help prevent the southern half of Wayne County from being cutoff every time there's a flood.
If Interstate 87 does not go beyond Williamston, then it really should have been given an even second digit. Or maybe it could have just stayed US 64.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 20, 2017, 03:24:49 PM
If Interstate 87 does not go beyond Williamston, then it really should have been given an even second digit. Or maybe it could have just stayed US 64.
The blame for this can be squarely laid at two sets of feet: NCDOT, which opted for the odd number to begin with in order to avoid duplication with state routes in the general vicinity (a tactic shot down by AASHTO and FHWA in short order), and AASHTO/FHWA, for buying into the "odd number" rationale -- but almost inexplicably changed the number from the NCDOT-sought "89" down to "87". IMHO, it should have been an even-numbered route to begin with, as the overall latitudinal (E-W) "stretch" is somewhat longer than that of the longitudinal (N-S) one. Any
unused even number from 46 to 62 that didn't have in-state US route conflicts would have worked fine (pulling at least 50 and 52 out of the mix). To me, snagging a number that's already in use elsewhere is like a person looking for a spouse who limits their prospect pool to those who are already married ("hey, at least they've got experience!). :)
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.
Quote from: fillup420 on June 17, 2017, 12:08:13 PM
I bet NC state officials submitted to Google that I-87 and I-587 be labeled. Everyone uses GPS nowadays, and it will cause folks to start calling the roads by their interstate number. Eventually the new numbers will become mainstream, and they won't even have to officially designate them.
I work in traffic operations for NCDOT. We in fact, did not. We have been asking google for months to remove I-587 and now will have to do the same with I-87. They don't respond to requests for up to 6 months straight. So it will probably be there for a while.
I would dare say it is someone in the roadgeek community that submitted it to google.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 20, 2017, 04:33:34 PM
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.
No -- the even numbers initially being considered (46, 48, 54, 56) all conflicted with state highways in the vicinity of the Raleigh-Norfolk alignment -- and while there's no state law forbidding numerical duplication, NCDOT figured that they would have to re-designate one of the conflicting state highways, which would pose issues for folks with addresses along that route that referenced the route number. So they came up with the original "89" plan, because state route 89 was well west of Raleigh and didn't pose any particular conflict issues. Then AASHTO went and pulled "87" out of one of their orifices, ostensibly because the eastern section along US 17 was a little more in line with the present I-87 than with I-89 ("yeah....that's the ticket!"). Surprisingly, they didn't choose I-97 -- even though there's a miniscule chance of connecting
those two routes' sections -- but certainly more than with either I-87 or I-89! Convoluted reasoning, laughable number!
Quote from: sparker on June 20, 2017, 04:52:03 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 20, 2017, 04:33:34 PM
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.
No -- the even numbers initially being considered (46, 48, 54, 56) all conflicted with state highways in the vicinity of the Raleigh-Norfolk alignment -- and while there's no state law forbidding numerical duplication, NCDOT figured that they would have to re-designate one of the conflicting state highways, which would pose issues for folks with addresses along that route that referenced the route number. So they came up with the original "89" plan, because state route 89 was well west of Raleigh and didn't pose any particular conflict issues. Then AASHTO went and pulled "87" out of one of their orifices, ostensibly because the eastern section along US 17 was a little more in line with the present I-87 than with I-89 ("yeah....that's the ticket!"). Surprisingly, they didn't choose I-97 -- even though there's a miniscule chance of connecting those two routes' sections -- but certainly more than with either I-87 or I-89! Convoluted reasoning, laughable number!
I may have been trying to assign too much logic to NCDOT. Though this does beg the question of NC 73/I-73, especially since NC 73 crosses what will eventually be apart of the I-73/74 multiplex.
Quote from: plain on June 20, 2017, 01:24:54 PM
In Virginia the US 17 corridor would definitely be the preferred alignment if they really insist on building this stupid thing.
Yes it would be the alignment used, as it is all on limited-access right-of-way between the state line and I-64. That means that it would be upgraded to a freeway by installing bridges to replace at-grade intersections.
Quote from: LM117 on June 20, 2017, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 02:03:42 PM
It's not. Because Future Interstate designation does not give access to any additional pots of Federal funding. If anything, given Federal law (mostly) and FHWA policy (a little), what this will do is force NCDOT to spend Federal funding on US 64 that they now won't have for other corridors, because it comes from their normal Federal highway funding allotment.
To add to this, the real reason I-87 was heavily pushed is to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virgina. Despite the official spin regarding the idea of linking Raleigh and Norfolk, it was done to benefit eastern NC. I-87's routing makes this blatantly obvious.
Which I don't understand, because eastern NC is mostly rural with a collection of small towns and a few small cities. They already have two decent high-speed 4-lane divided highways, in US-17 and NC-168/US-158, and the only thing needed on those highways over the next 20 years are some selected bridge replacements and a handful of interchange additions.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 05:09:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 20, 2017, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 02:03:42 PM
It's not. Because Future Interstate designation does not give access to any additional pots of Federal funding. If anything, given Federal law (mostly) and FHWA policy (a little), what this will do is force NCDOT to spend Federal funding on US 64 that they now won't have for other corridors, because it comes from their normal Federal highway funding allotment.
To add to this, the real reason I-87 was heavily pushed is to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virgina. Despite the official spin regarding the idea of linking Raleigh and Norfolk, it was done to benefit eastern NC. I-87's routing makes this blatantly obvious.
Which I don't understand, because eastern NC is mostly rural with a collection of small towns and a few small cities. They already have two decent high-speed 4-lane divided highways, in US-17 and NC-168/US-158, and the only thing needed on those highways over the next 20 years are some selected bridge replacements and a handful of interchange additions.
You have to understand a bit about North Carolina history to see why the Eastern part of the state receives preferential treatment (or at least better treatment than it would otherwise get). The base of power in the state has historically resided in eastern NC, Charlotte's emergence as a power is still REALLY recent in the state's history. The vast majority of the state's governors have come from Eastern North Carolina and until the decline of the tobacco crop, it was the hub of economic activity in the state.
A lot of money and influence are still in eastern NC and I-42 and 87 are attempts to recapture some of the region's past economy glory. Though I would argue that there is a benefit to connecting Raleigh to Hampton Roads but it'll mostly come for Hampton Roads since they'll have easier access to Raleigh and Charlotte vacationers.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 20, 2017, 05:19:10 PM
A lot of money and influence are still in eastern NC and I-42 and 87 are attempts to recapture some of the region's past economy glory. Though I would argue that there is a benefit to connecting Raleigh to Hampton Roads but it'll mostly come for Hampton Roads since they'll have easier access to Raleigh and Charlotte vacationers.
To be fair, I think it was a very smart move by eastern NC (specifically the US-70 Corridor Commission) to push for US-70 to become what is now Future I-42, as well as I-795's extension. US-70 has been long overdue for an upgrade. It not only benefits the locals, but having a freeway from Raleigh to Morehead City would make it safer for beach and truck traffic as well. I'm sure many people in the Triangle would love to have a 70mph highway to the Crystal Coast. Linking I-795 with I-40 would create a high-speed shortcut between the Port of Wilmington and I-95, as well as improved crossings over the flood-prone Neuse River.
As for the benefit of linking Raleigh and Norfolk, the US-58/I-95/US-64 route is shorter which, again, boils down to it's intended purpose of linking eastern NC to the Port of Virginia.
Quote from: Bcthurki on June 20, 2017, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on June 17, 2017, 12:08:13 PM
I bet NC state officials submitted to Google that I-87 and I-587 be labeled. Everyone uses GPS nowadays, and it will cause folks to start calling the roads by their interstate number. Eventually the new numbers will become mainstream, and they won't even have to officially designate them.
I work in traffic operations for NCDOT. We in fact, did not. We have been asking google for months to remove I-587 and now will have to do the same with I-87. They don't respond to requests for up to 6 months straight. So it will probably be there for a while.
I would dare say it is someone in the roadgeek community that submitted it to google.
Would you happen to know when NCDOT plans to sign I-87, the approved part from I-40 to the end of the Knightdale Bypass, now that I-495 has been officially decommissioned? Google Maps will probably remove the I-87 shields from US 64 soon after. :D
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 05:03:17 PM
Quote from: plain on June 20, 2017, 01:24:54 PM
In Virginia the US 17 corridor would definitely be the preferred alignment if they really insist on building this stupid thing.
Yes it would be the alignment used, as it is all on limited-access right-of-way between the state line and I-64. That means that it would be upgraded to a freeway by installing bridges to replace at-grade intersections.
If, and that is a pretty big If, the highway gets built in VA (good luck letting the environmentalists to build a freeway through the Great Dismal Swamp) plus the fact VA is not too keen on it anyway (if the tone here is correct) I take I-464 would become I-87 to keep continuity.
Plus if there is to be a Raliegh to Norfolk corridor why not just upgrade the US 258 corridor into Holland, VA (using the old VA 189 in VA) and save the east then north then east again and north as following US 64 to Williston and then up the US 17 corridor into Hampton Roads. This would be more direct and cut time off as well as it would deter from US 64 from Tarboro and head North but Northeast.
Quote from: english si on June 20, 2017, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 11:50:01 AM
It would actually require a lot more as you'd have to find a way to get a new alignment route from US 17 to NC/VA 168.
A lot less construction in VA though!
Not so sure; Large portions of the VA-168 freeway (most importantly, the high bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway) are not up to interstate standards. Plus, you'd have to replace a mile-long stoplighted section at the southern end.
I imagine that any improvements on VA's end toward a Raleigh - HR corridor would likely involve upgrades to US-58.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 20, 2017, 05:19:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 05:09:58 PM
Which I don't understand, because eastern NC is mostly rural with a collection of small towns and a few small cities. They already have two decent high-speed 4-lane divided highways, in US-17 and NC-168/US-158, and the only thing needed on those highways over the next 20 years are some selected bridge replacements and a handful of interchange additions.
You have to understand a bit about North Carolina history to see why the Eastern part of the state receives preferential treatment (or at least better treatment than it would otherwise get). The base of power in the state has historically resided in eastern NC, Charlotte's emergence as a power is still REALLY recent in the state's history. The vast majority of the state's governors have come from Eastern North Carolina and until the decline of the tobacco crop, it was the hub of economic activity in the state.
A lot of money and influence are still in eastern NC and I-42 and 87 are attempts to recapture some of the region's past economy glory. Though I would argue that there is a benefit to connecting Raleigh to Hampton Roads but it'll mostly come for Hampton Roads since they'll have easier access to Raleigh and Charlotte vacationers.
As a Virginian I hear little if any real interest in the Hampton Roads area for this I-87. US-17 between the state line and I-64 is now a very capable 4-lane highway, part freeway and the rest is at-grade expressway.
Eastern North Carolina is welcome to dream, but I just don't see Interstate warrants for either of those highways, when considering the $30 million or more cost per mile of rural Interstate highway. I-87 would need at least 100 miles of new location highway, and I-42 would need at least 120 miles of new location highway. So that would be $6.6 billion right there, fantastically expensive. That doesn't include the cost of upgrading the sections that already are freeway. From a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, it fails big time.
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 20, 2017, 06:29:15 PM
Quote from: english si on June 20, 2017, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 11:50:01 AM
It would actually require a lot more as you'd have to find a way to get a new alignment route from US 17 to NC/VA 168.
A lot less construction in VA though!
Not so sure; Large portions of the VA-168 freeway (most importantly, the high bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway) are not up to interstate standards. Plus, you'd have to replace a mile-long stoplighted section at the southern end.
The bridge has at least a 60 mph design speed, and full shoulders, I don't see why it would not meet Interstate standards.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA168_CA_Bridge.jpg
2,750-foot-long high-level bridge with 65 feet of vertical navigational clearance over the Intracoastal Waterway / Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal. The approach spans pass over adjacent wetlands. Looking north. This is part of the Great Bridge Bypass that was opened about 1980.
Other than the last mile which is an expressway, I see only one issue on VA-168 that does not meet Interstate standards -- on the tolled segment, the shoulders and roadsides are too narrow, about 8 feet and 10 feet respectively. I would recommend widening them to 10 feet and 20 feet respectively, before designating as an Interstate.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA168_ICR_N_0501T.jpg
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA168_Chesa_Expwy.html
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 12:51:19 PM
Depends on how they routed such an alignment.
Like a direct route between Windsor, NC and existing US-17 at the VA border? That would cut maybe 10 to 12 miles off of the current US-17 route, but then it would not pass near anything but a few small towns.
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 20, 2017, 06:29:15 PM
I imagine that any improvements on VA's end toward a Raleigh - HR corridor would likely involve upgrades to US-58.
Agreed. Plus anyone west of Raleigh (Charlotte, Atlanta, hell even Durham) would likely continue up I-85 directly to US 58 to reach Hampton Roads anyway, whether I-87 is built as planned or not, as that is clearly to shorter route for that traffic.
I'm just wondering why NC wants so many interstates. Clearly they've been upgrading roads or bypassing them without the interstate designations for years (long stretches of freeways on US routes 1, 64, 220 pre interstate, 264). I do agree that the state should concentrate on US 70 though. Eastern NC now has a continuous 4 lane connection to Hampton Roads (ironically the last 2-lane section was in Virginia on US 17) so I'm not sure why the ports thing is necessarily an issue.
Quote from: sparker on June 20, 2017, 04:52:03 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 20, 2017, 04:33:34 PM
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.
No -- the even numbers initially being considered (46, 48, 54, 56) all conflicted with state highways in the vicinity of the Raleigh-Norfolk alignment -- and while there's no state law forbidding numerical duplication, NCDOT figured that they would have to re-designate one of the conflicting state highways, which would pose issues for folks with addresses along that route that referenced the route number. So they came up with the original "89" plan, because state route 89 was well west of Raleigh and didn't pose any particular conflict issues. Then AASHTO went and pulled "87" out of one of their orifices, ostensibly because the eastern section along US 17 was a little more in line with the present I-87 than with I-89 ("yeah....that's the ticket!"). Surprisingly, they didn't choose I-97 -- even though there's a miniscule chance of connecting those two routes' sections -- but certainly more than with either I-87 or I-89! Convoluted reasoning, laughable number!
But the interstate system is the more important (and I'd dare say higher up on the hierarchy). The state routes should bow down to the interstates and show their respect, not the other way around.
Quote from: vdeane on June 20, 2017, 08:41:03 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 20, 2017, 04:52:03 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 20, 2017, 04:33:34 PM
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.
No -- the even numbers initially being considered (46, 48, 54, 56) all conflicted with state highways in the vicinity of the Raleigh-Norfolk alignment -- and while there's no state law forbidding numerical duplication, NCDOT figured that they would have to re-designate one of the conflicting state highways, which would pose issues for folks with addresses along that route that referenced the route number. So they came up with the original "89" plan, because state route 89 was well west of Raleigh and didn't pose any particular conflict issues. Then AASHTO went and pulled "87" out of one of their orifices, ostensibly because the eastern section along US 17 was a little more in line with the present I-87 than with I-89 ("yeah....that's the ticket!"). Surprisingly, they didn't choose I-97 -- even though there's a miniscule chance of connecting those two routes' sections -- but certainly more than with either I-87 or I-89! Convoluted reasoning, laughable number!
But the interstate system is the more important (and I'd dare say higher up on the hierarchy). The state routes should bow down to the interstates and show their respect, not the other way around.
While I can see NCDOT's point regarding not pissing off state taxpayers (and registered voters!) be making some of them change their mailing addresses, there
is a concept of "the greater good" at play here -- and maintaining a cohesive numbering system (which, at least IMHO, calls for minimizing unnecessary duplications) for a national network needs prioritization. Sometimes states walk a thin line between serving the status quo regarding their citizenry and looking at the big picture through a regional or even national lens; in this instance, they arbitrarily came down on one side of the line and in the end (or so far) no one really came out unscathed.
Maybe this'll also serve as a lesson to AASHTO --
no open bar at SCOURN meetings! :poke:
Quote from: plain on June 20, 2017, 07:23:22 PM
I'm just wondering why NC wants so many interstates. Clearly they've been upgrading roads or bypassing them without the interstate designations for years (long stretches of freeways on US routes 1, 64, 220 pre interstate, 264). I do agree that the state should concentrate on US 70 though. Eastern NC now has a continuous 4 lane connection to Hampton Roads (ironically the last 2-lane section was in Virginia on US 17) so I'm not sure why the ports thing is necessarily an issue.
It's mainly for marketing purposes. There's a widely held belief that companies will not locate to an area without nearby interstate access. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. That's why Greenville pushed for US-264 to become what is now Future I-587 and for NC-11/US-13 between Kinston and Bethel to become an interstate. Being that Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC, as well as it's hub, they would be able to market themselves as having interstate access to I-95 and Raleigh, and the Port of Virginia. Without I-87, there would be no interstate to Hampton Roads from which Greenville and Kinston can connect to.
Kinston wanted I-42 and NC-11/US-13 for similar reasons, particularly to help revitalize the Global Transpark (http://www.ncgtp.com/ (http://www.ncgtp.com/)). The rest of the towns/cities along I-42's corridor wanted the interstate designation because they saw it as a way of making US-70's upgrade a higher priority because of the aforementioned safety issues.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 20, 2017, 06:19:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 05:03:17 PM
Quote from: plain on June 20, 2017, 01:24:54 PM
In Virginia the US 17 corridor would definitely be the preferred alignment if they really insist on building this stupid thing.
Yes it would be the alignment used, as it is all on limited-access right-of-way between the state line and I-64. That means that it would be upgraded to a freeway by installing bridges to replace at-grade intersections.
If, and that is a pretty big If, the highway gets built in VA (good luck letting the environmentalists to build a freeway through the Great Dismal Swamp) plus the fact VA is not too keen on it anyway (if the tone here is correct) I take I-464 would become I-87 to keep continuity.
VA isn't keen on any new interstates, period. If I-87 does somehow make it into VA, then I agree that it would make sense for it to replace I-464 and end at I-264.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 06:54:17 PMEastern North Carolina is welcome to dream, but I just don't see Interstate warrants for either of those highways, when considering the $30 million or more cost per mile of rural Interstate highway. I-87 would need at least 100 miles of new location highway, and I-42 would need at least 120 miles of new location highway. So that would be $6.6 billion right there, fantastically expensive. That doesn't include the cost of upgrading the sections that already are freeway. From a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, it fails big time.
I agree with your post regarding I-87. However, I disagree that I-42 is a fail for reasons I've previously mentioned.
Quote from: Beltwayand I-42 would need at least 120 miles of new location highway.
No it doesn't. Have you not noticed that most of I-42 will be a direct upgrade of existing US 70? At this point, about the only new alignment would be the Kingston bypass and from Havelock down (though IMO, most of that "North Carteret Bypass" is overkill).
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 11:12:25 PM
Quote from: Beltwayand I-42 would need at least 120 miles of new location highway.
No it doesn't. Have you not noticed that most of I-42 will be a direct upgrade of existing US 70? At this point, about the only new alignment would be the Kingston bypass and from Havelock down (though IMO, most of that "North Carteret Bypass" is overkill).
Looks like at least 120 miles of nonlimited-access highway ... correct? Upgrading a highway like that to freeway standards means buying access controls, building service roads, building overpass bridges, building interchanges, correcting any alignment deficiencies, replacing old bridges. Near the same cost per mile as a new location freeway. Example: VA I-95 between Jarratt and VA-35.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 11:48:36 PM
Looks like at least 120 miles of nonlimited-access highway ... correct?
Hell no. 120 miles is the total distance from I-40 to Havelock. 60 whole miles of that is freeway.
Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2017, 01:22:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 11:48:36 PM
Looks like at least 120 miles of nonlimited-access highway ... correct?
Hell no. 120 miles is the total distance from I-40 to Havelock. 60 whole miles of that is freeway.
OK, I get 140 miles from I-40 to Morehead City. So 80 miles of miles of nonlimited-access highway, still at least $2.4 billion to upgrade and/or bypass. Still doesn't seem remotely warranted from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint or just finding the money period.
Quote from: Bcthurki on June 20, 2017, 04:42:58 PM
I work in traffic operations for NCDOT. We in fact, did not. We have been asking google for months to remove I-587 and now will have to do the same with I-87. They don't respond to requests for up to 6 months straight. So it will probably be there for a while.
I would dare say it is someone in the roadgeek community that submitted it to google.
Google may do great things but it is the worst when it comes to customer service. Being "open" is one thing but when there are no controls on who can submit what you get things like errant route numbers. Here at work, we "claimed" our business -- Virginia Tech -- and sent in post cards (yes, POST CARDS!) to Google to verify that we were the valid "owners" of university information on search results, maps, etc. That didn't prevent random people from changing contact phone numbers or adding (sometimes wrong) information to the Google map covering the campus.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 04:58:33 AM
Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2017, 01:22:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 11:48:36 PM
Looks like at least 120 miles of nonlimited-access highway ... correct?
Hell no. 120 miles is the total distance from I-40 to Havelock. 60 whole miles of that is freeway.
OK, I get 140 miles from I-40 to Morehead City. So 80 miles of miles of nonlimited-access highway, still at least $2.4 billion to upgrade and/or bypass. Still doesn't seem remotely warranted from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint or just finding the money period.
Have you ever driven US-70? I grew up in Wayne County and lived there for 14 years and I lost count of how many horrific crashes that have happened there, not counting those that happened after I left in 2009. I used to commute on US-70 between Goldsboro and Clayton and I hated it. Whenever I went to Raleigh, I took I-795 to US-264 just to avoid it. Sure it was more mileage, but it had less traffic, no stoplights and a 70mph speed limit the whole way.
Before the new US-70 Bypass opened, Goldsboro was a huge bottleneck due to the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the numerous traffic lights didn't help matters. That bypass was desperately needed.
Quote from: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 09:33:42 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 04:58:33 AM
OK, I get 140 miles from I-40 to Morehead City. So 80 miles of miles of nonlimited-access highway, still at least $2.4 billion to upgrade and/or bypass. Still doesn't seem remotely warranted from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint or just finding the money period.
Have you ever driven US-70? I grew up in Wayne County and lived there for 14 years and I lost count of how many horrific crashes that have happened there, not counting those that happened after I left in 2009. I used to commute on US-70 between Goldsboro and Clayton and I hated it. Whenever I went to Raleigh, I took I-795 to US-264 just to avoid it. Sure it was more mileage, but it had less traffic, no stoplights and a 70mph speed limit the whole way.
Before the new US-70 Bypass opened, Goldsboro was a huge bottleneck due to the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the numerous traffic lights didn't help matters. That bypass was desperately needed.
In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.
Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.
Quote from: VTGoose on June 21, 2017, 09:22:06 AM
Quote from: Bcthurki on June 20, 2017, 04:42:58 PM
I work in traffic operations for NCDOT. We in fact, did not. We have been asking google for months to remove I-587 and now will have to do the same with I-87. They don't respond to requests for up to 6 months straight. So it will probably be there for a while.
I would dare say it is someone in the roadgeek community that submitted it to google.
Google may do great things but it is the worst when it comes to customer service. Being "open" is one thing but when there are no controls on who can submit what you get things like errant route numbers. Here at work, we "claimed" our business -- Virginia Tech -- and sent in post cards (yes, POST CARDS!) to Google to verify that we were the valid "owners" of university information on search results, maps, etc. That didn't prevent random people from changing contact phone numbers or adding (sometimes wrong) information to the Google map covering the campus.
Bruce in Blacksburg
I wonder what is with the OnStar Nav system... it calls Forest Hill Avenue near where I live, both by that name and as VA 683. It hasn't been numbered or a state route since 1970 when that part of Chesterfield County was annexed by the City of Richmond.
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 09:33:42 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 04:58:33 AM
OK, I get 140 miles from I-40 to Morehead City. So 80 miles of miles of nonlimited-access highway, still at least $2.4 billion to upgrade and/or bypass. Still doesn't seem remotely warranted from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint or just finding the money period.
Have you ever driven US-70? I grew up in Wayne County and lived there for 14 years and I lost count of how many horrific crashes that have happened there, not counting those that happened after I left in 2009. I used to commute on US-70 between Goldsboro and Clayton and I hated it. Whenever I went to Raleigh, I took I-795 to US-264 just to avoid it. Sure it was more mileage, but it had less traffic, no stoplights and a 70mph speed limit the whole way.
Before the new US-70 Bypass opened, Goldsboro was a huge bottleneck due to the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the numerous traffic lights didn't help matters. That bypass was desperately needed.
In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.
Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.
If US-70 was not as important of a corridor as it is, I would agree that spot improvements would suffice. But it simply carries too much traffic for spot improvements to handle, and it is already part of the national Strategic Highway Network, not to mention there's two military bases along the corridor (Seymour Johnson AFB & Cherry Point MCAS). There were already plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway before the US-70 Corridor Commission decided to begin pushing for an interstate designation in 2013.
Their website has more info: https://www.super70corridor.com/ (https://www.super70corridor.com/)
Now, US-17 is a corridor that could easily be handled with spot improvements. It has lighter traffic and doesn't have as many safety issues as US-70, at least not the part that's supposed to become I-87.
Quote from: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 04:42:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 10:44:21 AM
In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.
Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.
If US-70 was not as important of a corridor as it is, I would agree that spot improvements would suffice. But it simply carries too much traffic for spot improvements to handle, and it is already part of the national Strategic Highway Network, not to mention there's two military bases along the corridor (Seymour Johnson AFB & Cherry Point MCAS). There were already plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway before the US-70 Corridor Commission decided to begin pushing for an interstate designation in 2013.
Their website has more info: https://www.super70corridor.com/ (https://www.super70corridor.com/)
The problem is the cost, which that website doesn't specifically estimate. It could easily be $3 to $4 billion, and I seriously doubt that that kind of funding can be obtained.
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 04:53:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 04:42:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 10:44:21 AM
In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.
Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.
If US-70 was not as important of a corridor as it is, I would agree that spot improvements would suffice. But it simply carries too much traffic for spot improvements to handle, and it is already part of the national Strategic Highway Network, not to mention there's two military bases along the corridor (Seymour Johnson AFB & Cherry Point MCAS). There were already plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway before the US-70 Corridor Commission decided to begin pushing for an interstate designation in 2013.
Their website has more info: https://www.super70corridor.com/ (https://www.super70corridor.com/)
The problem is the cost, which that website doesn't specifically estimate. It could easily be $3 to $4 billion, and I seriously doubt that that kind of funding can be obtained.
Oh, I agree about the funding.
Quote from: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 04:55:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 04:53:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 04:42:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 10:44:21 AM
In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.
Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.
If US-70 was not as important of a corridor as it is, I would agree that spot improvements would suffice. But it simply carries too much traffic for spot improvements to handle, and it is already part of the national Strategic Highway Network, not to mention there's two military bases along the corridor (Seymour Johnson AFB & Cherry Point MCAS). There were already plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway before the US-70 Corridor Commission decided to begin pushing for an interstate designation in 2013.
Their website has more info: https://www.super70corridor.com/ (https://www.super70corridor.com/)
The problem is the cost, which that website doesn't specifically estimate. It could easily be $3 to $4 billion, and I seriously doubt that that kind of funding can be obtained.
Oh, I agree about the funding.
Which likely means the US 70/I-42 project will be done as a series of SIU's intended to enhance specific areas (Wilsons Mills/Selma, Kinston, etc.) with the I-42 aspect accomplished by stringing together these projects along with relatively minor upgrades of the freeway west of New Bern -- plus what has already been done. The more problematic area will probably be from New Bern east, including the already-challenged Havelock bypass, requiring significant outlays for route alterations and/or any mitigation that might be necessary.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but I-87 is now shown on Google Maps from the current east end of I-495 to I-95
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2017, 09:24:44 PM
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but I-87 is now shown on Google Maps from the current east end of I-495 to I-95
Yes, it's been mentioned in the other threads... it is wrong.
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2017, 09:55:02 PM
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.
AASHTO begs to differ -- although some states, including NC, elect to treat those administrative rules as suggestions only, as evidenced by US 117 being signed on
its old alignment parallel to I-795.
Quote from: sparker on June 22, 2017, 02:24:47 AM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2017, 09:55:02 PM
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.
AASHTO begs to differ -- although some states, including NC, elect to treat those administrative rules as suggestions only, as evidenced by US 117 being signed on its old alignment parallel to I-795.
AASHTO approved moving US-117 back to it's old alignment.
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRNDecisiononNCAM2008Resubmissions.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRNDecisiononNCAM2008Resubmissions.pdf)
^ THey violated their own policies in doing so, but yes they did.
Quote from: sparker on June 22, 2017, 02:24:47 AM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2017, 09:55:02 PM
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.
AASHTO begs to differ -- although some states, including NC, elect to treat those administrative rules as suggestions only, as evidenced by US 117 being signed on its old alignment parallel to I-795.
It would not be the first as US 44 in CT was once signed on former I-86 (now I-84) and later removed and put back on its former alignment.
VA did the same with US 13 being on I-64, as they later reinstated it back on Military Highway through Norfolk and Chesapeake as it was originally before the interstate was constructed.
QuoteVA did the same with US 13 being on I-64, as they later reinstated it back on Military Highway through Norfolk and Chesapeake as it was originally before the interstate was constructed.
Somewhat different case. Military Hwy was an important arterial route in its own right, even with I-64 built. Not the same situation with US 117.
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.
Quote from: LM117 on June 22, 2017, 06:48:50 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 22, 2017, 02:24:47 AM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2017, 09:55:02 PM
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.
AASHTO begs to differ -- although some states, including NC, elect to treat those administrative rules as suggestions only, as evidenced by US 117 being signed on its old alignment parallel to I-795.
AASHTO approved moving US-117 back to it's old alignment.
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRNDecisiononNCAM2008Resubmissions.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRNDecisiononNCAM2008Resubmissions.pdf)
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2017, 07:16:59 AM
^ THey violated their own policies in doing so, but yes they did.
Quote from: NE2 on June 22, 2017, 01:40:18 PM
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.
Ok then -- if AASHTO is handling the US route reinstatement issue on a case-by-case basis -- and NCDOT's internal policies don't permit such an action, then just
who is instigating the moves for US routes being reinstated on their pre-freeway alignments? I would venture a guess that it's the local interests and/or communities who, ironically, likely spearheaded the move(s) for Interstate status to begin with! Nothing like having
two parallel signed facilities, one at ground level for local business access & egress and the other keeping through traffic away from city streets, serving your town -- particularly if one's a longstanding U.S. route and the other's an Interstate; best of both worlds in terms of commerce and efficiency. And probably one of the primary reasons new Interstate corridors have become part of the NC planning process.
Quote from: NE2 on June 22, 2017, 01:40:18 PM
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.
AASHTO wasn't consulted about it to start, which is how they got around it. :spin:
The other sections where US 220 does continue to overlap are because those have been through AASHTO, mostly all before I-73 existed.
@sparker:
I was referring to AASHTO when I said they're violating their own policies by moving the U.S. route back to its original alignment.
Regarding your other question/concern, private citizens/entities/groups/businesses/etc etc are *NOT* allowed to submit route change requests to AASHTO. Those must come from the respective state DOTs (or equivalents in some states cases). But you're probably right in that it's local concerns spearheading the push.
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2017, 04:31:48 PM
@sparker:
I was referring to AASHTO when I said they're violating their own policies by moving the U.S. route back to its original alignment.
Regarding your other question/concern, private citizens/entities/groups/businesses/etc etc are *NOT* allowed to submit route change requests to AASHTO. Those must come from the respective state DOTs (or equivalents in some states cases). But you're probably right in that it's local concerns spearheading the push.
I didn't think that private concerns -- even regional action organizations -- would submit requests directly to AASHTO; that
is reserved for DOT's (as per AASHTO's own extended name!). But such groups, if allied with local governments and/or MPO's, can -- and if recent history is any indication, do -- put a substantial amount of pressure on those DOT's to channel their requests upstream, so to speak.
I had the context of the "policy violation" issue a bit jumbled -- but I suppose if anyone is capable of reversing course midstream, it's AASHTO -- or at least the SCOURN subsection, which has hardly proven to be the model of consistency.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2017, 03:45:57 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 22, 2017, 01:40:18 PM
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.
AASHTO wasn't consulted about it to start, which is how they got around it. :spin:
The other sections where US 220 does continue to overlap are because those have been through AASHTO, mostly all before I-73 existed.
I would favor that practice. I would like to see US-220 moved back to the original highway between Bedford, PA and Williamsport, PA.
Quote from: NE2 on June 22, 2017, 01:40:18 PM
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.
They also didn't approve removing US 70-401 off the Raleigh Beltline AFAIK.
North Carolina has a history of returning the US routes to their original alignments from interstates:
North Carolina has a long history of returning US routes from interstate overlays...
The ones people here are most familiar with: US 117 and I-795; I-440 and US 70-401; US 220 through Ellerbe
There was also a substantial return for US 70 (Greensboro to Hillsborough)
US 64 Conover to Statesville
US 29 on Bypasses of both Charlotte and Salisbury
Actually screw AAHSTO in this case. Some roads should be on their original alignments IMO as they were moved onto the freeway only cause the interstate was not yet conceived and now that its there it can go back.
US 220 now with I-99 had Buddy Boy thought of it ten years sooner, US 220 would go through Bedford, Claysburg, Duncansville, Altoona, and Tyrone as I-99 would solely gotten the freeway.
That is what I hope in AR-MO with US 71, I would hate to see them put US 71 on the completed Bell Vista Bypass (if it ever gets done in this century that is), I hope that US 71 gets some form of an identity still as most is overlapped with I-49 now.
I don't see what's wrong with "case by case" decisions. It all depends on the needs of local traffic. Sometimes it makes good sense to move the US number back to the old route, and sometimes it doesn't.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 23, 2017, 06:44:03 PM
I don't see what's wrong with "case by case" decisions. It all depends on the needs of local traffic. Sometimes it makes good sense to move the US number back to the old route, and sometimes it doesn't.
I agree. Putting US-117 back on it's old alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson is one case that I agree with.
Yes, having a US route co-signed with an interstate serving the same areas is an exception that should be made as the local road does is a regional importance. Plus with US routes being submissive to interstates it might as well have a lower standard road.
In essence some concurrencies are redundant to have. Look at US 40 in both Kansas and Missouri, the US highway there is with I-70 for several hundred miles. Though apples and oranges as Kansas and North Carolina have a difference in the way the population is scattered so having US 40 independent from the interstate in Kansas would not serve the locals as US 117 would in rural NC as the traffic counts are not as great. I only mentioned that as an example that even with good reason US 40's long overlap with its companion interstate does appear useless. Now, in Missouri that US route to be independent could be useful as I-70 is lined with a lot of towns along the way with locals traveling about, so having US 40 on its original course would be feasible to have.
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 24, 2017, 01:19:07 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.
I thought Maine was.
Quote from: 1 on June 24, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 24, 2017, 01:19:07 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.
I thought Maine was.
Wisconsin is also a charter member of the multiplex club. Out here in CA we use the agricultural inspection stations to confiscate multiplex ideas before they infect our planning efforts! :sombrero:
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 24, 2017, 01:19:07 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.
North Carolina isn't even the winner in the south...
Georgia would get the blue ribbon...
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 24, 2017, 01:19:07 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.
To their credit, they've been trying to move away from that. US-117, US-17 and US-220 are recent examples.
Quote from: 1 on June 24, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 24, 2017, 01:19:07 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.
I thought Maine was.
Not even close.
If NCDOT were transplanted to Maine, US 1 would be multiplexed with I-95 between Kittery and Portland and then I-295 between Kittery and Brunswick.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 24, 2017, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 24, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 24, 2017, 01:19:07 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.
I thought Maine was.
Not even close.
If NCDOT were transplanted to Maine, US 1 would be multiplexed with I-95 between Kittery and Portland and then I-295 between Kittery and Brunswick.
4/11/100/202, 11/17/100/202, 17/100/201/202, 11/100/201, 8/42/148/201A, 15/202/395, 4/5/202, 11/35/302, the list goes on...
(100 and 202 could be deleted with almost no effect.)
I'd give Maine the edge. Their volume of redundant state route concurrencies dwarfs anything North Carolina has, even at the U.S. route level.
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)
QuoteNew projects include:
Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line
Quote from: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 03:14:20 PM
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)
QuoteNew projects include:
Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line
That would imply that the specific I-87 route (existing US 17) has been identified and that the ball's now in Virginia's court (via the City of Chesapeake) as to what's going to happen north of the state line. It'll be interesting to see if they'll actually cooperate with this corridor concept.
Quote from: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 03:14:20 PM
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)
QuoteNew projects include:
Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line
Construction slated to start in 2027
Interesting that they're going to follow US 17 to the Virginia border instead of angling it northeast to meet Virginia SR 168.
Quote from: Finrod on June 29, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
Interesting that they're going to follow US 17 to the Virginia border instead of angling it northeast to meet Virginia SR 168.
It would be very expensive to do so and due to the sensitive wetlands there, it would undoubtedly draw fierce opposition and lawsuits from environmental groups, who would likely win the case since US-17 is already built. NCDOT pretty much has no choice but to use US-17.
Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2017, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 03:14:20 PM
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)
QuoteNew projects include:
Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line
That would imply that the specific I-87 route (existing US 17) has been identified and that the ball's now in Virginia's court (via the City of Chesapeake) as to what's going to happen north of the state line. It'll be interesting to see if they'll actually cooperate with this corridor concept.
I wouldn't count on it. Hampton Roads is in favor of I-87, but they're understandably focused on other major projects in the area. There is no support for I-87 at the state level, so my guess is that once the major issues in Hampton Roads have been taken care of (whenever that may be), they'll turn their attention to I-87 and hopefully I-87 will replace I-464.
Quote from: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 07:48:50 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2017, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 03:14:20 PM
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)
QuoteNew projects include:
Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line
That would imply that the specific I-87 route (existing US 17) has been identified and that the ball's now in Virginia's court (via the City of Chesapeake) as to what's going to happen north of the state line. It'll be interesting to see if they'll actually cooperate with this corridor concept.
I wouldn't count on it. Hampton Roads is in favor of I-87, but they're understandably focused on other major projects in the area. There is no support for I-87 at the state level, so my guess is that once the major issues in Hampton Roads have been taken care of (whenever that may be), they'll turn their attention to I-87 and hopefully I-87 will replace I-464.
It
does appear that the most difficult segment of the likely VA routing, along Dominion Blvd., is at least well under way. Except for the dicey condition of the pavement (if you can see the potholes and cracks on GSV, it's pretty bad!), much of the N-S section of 17 south of the Dominion curve appears to be upgradeable expressway with a limited amount of cross-traffic (probably due to the adjoining swamp). Getting it physically done would neither be a cakewalk or a nightmare -- somewhere in between. The most difficult task will be to convince Chesapeake, the local MPO, and VDOT that it is to their benefit to provide enhanced egress to southward points (despite their historical reluctance to do so) via the proposed I-87
(still don't like that number!) corridor. At some point it's likely some local figure or another will echo our own Adam F. and wonder why US 58 wasn't selected for that purpose (at which point the blame scenario will likely resemble a circular firing squad!).
Maybe the Interstate will stop at the state line, maybe it won't -- we'll all just have to wait and see.
I don't think the presence of I-87 would hinder any future plans for US 58, as the two routes would function in different ways really...
I-87 would mostly function as a connection from Eastern Carolina to Hampton Roads, as well as a connection from Eastern Carolina to Raleigh/Durham and points west.
I believe US 58 would still be the preferred choice for I-85 traffic to reach Hampton Roads, because of the distance advantage, plus in order to reach I-87 from I-85, one would have to use I-40 (and, depending on time of day, deal with the Research Park traffic) traveling in a southeastern direction first.
For I-95 traffic wishing to reach Hampton Roads I think US 58 also has the advantage here.
Quote from: plain on June 29, 2017, 08:35:35 PM
I don't think the presence of I-87 would hinder any future plans for US 58, as the two routes would function in different ways really...
I-87 would mostly function as a connection from Eastern Carolina to Hampton Roads, as well as a connection from Eastern Carolina to Raleigh/Durham and points west.
I believe US 58 would still be the preferred choice for I-85 traffic to reach Hampton Roads, because of the distance advantage, plus in order to reach I-87 from I-85, one would have to use I-40 (and, depending on time of day, deal with the Research Park traffic) traveling in a southeastern direction first.
For I-95 traffic wishing to reach Hampton Roads I think US 58 also has the advantage here.
US 58
is the most direct (and logical) way to get from Hampton Roads to both southward I-95 and I-85. However, it appears that VA (referring to both VDOT and the state legislature) hasn't expressed much in the way of interest in upgrading this route beyond what's on the ground at present (essentially a conventional 4-lane divided road with some in-town segments). Right now -- as far as corridors under consideration for this purpose -- HPC 13/I-87 is pretty much the only game in town. Like the old adage goes, you've got to be in it to win it -- and VA seems to have limited interest in developing additional rural Interstate mileage (e.g. the I-73 situation); that's a NC "thing"!
Could Interstate 87 be built in Virginia without doing too much damage to the Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge? Infringing on the refuge would really get potential opponents up-in-arms.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 30, 2017, 03:51:53 PM
Could Interstate 87 be built in Virginia without doing too much damage to the Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge? Infringing on the refuge would really get potential opponents up-in-arms.
From current GSV (I haven't been on the road since about 2000) it looks like the swamp-dwelling section is a conventional 2+2, albeit with what looks like about 4' shoulders on either side; as the carriageways sit on a common berm, things could conceivably be shifted to avoid any additional egress into the swamp -- likely requiring a center median barrier. The various bridges would likely have to be given a waiver or replaced, since there doesn't seem to be full shoulder width there. It certainly isn't Interstate-grade by any means; but neither is it inconceivable that it could be brought up to at least minimal standards -- getting some terrain waivers (considering it
is in the middle of a swamp) would help.
Where the swamp impacts (and cost) would come up is in providing access to the land between the Canal and 17. Resurrecting the old road is a non-starter because it was A) too narrow, and B) has mostly been converted to a bike/ped path, so you'd incur Section 104(f) impacts too if you try to change that.
Not really worth the cost, no matter what type of shiny route shield North Carolina businesses want to show off...
Quote from: froggie on June 30, 2017, 07:39:40 PM
Where the swamp impacts (and cost) would come up is in providing access to the land between the Canal and 17. Resurrecting the old road is a non-starter because it was A) too narrow, and B) has mostly been converted to a bike/ped path, so you'd incur Section 104(f) impacts too if you try to change that.
Not really worth the cost, no matter what type of shiny route shield North Carolina businesses want to show off...
I believe as long as an interchange is put at Ballahack Rd and at either Cornland or Douglas Rd (with overpass at the other) then access can be maintained without having to reopen the old US 17 alignment more than it is right now.
Where it might also get complicated is the first mile south of the new VA 165 interchange where there is quite a bit of buildup so a couple interchanges are needed but there is not a ton of room anymore
Glencoe would need an overpass too for the house(s?) just east of the trail.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 30, 2017, 08:21:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 30, 2017, 07:39:40 PM
Where the swamp impacts (and cost) would come up is in providing access to the land between the Canal and 17. Resurrecting the old road is a non-starter because it was A) too narrow, and B) has mostly been converted to a bike/ped path, so you'd incur Section 104(f) impacts too if you try to change that.
Not really worth the cost, no matter what type of shiny route shield North Carolina businesses want to show off...
I believe as long as an interchange is put at Ballahack Rd and at either Cornland or Douglas Rd (with overpass at the other) then access can be maintained without having to reopen the old US 17 alignment more than it is right now.
Where it might also get complicated is the first mile south of the new VA 165 interchange where there is quite a bit of buildup so a couple interchanges are needed but there is not a ton of room anymore
VA US-17 north of Scenic Parkway is now a 4-lane freeway that I believe meets Interstate standards.
VA US-17 south of Scenic Parkway is an at-grade expressway, it has a limited access right-of-way. That means the at-grade intersections would need to have overpass bridges built over US-17, and ramps added at some of them. That is technically the only improvements that would be needed for Interstate standards.
An issue would be the huge farm of over 2,000 acres that spans both sides of US-17 on the southern part of the route, I recall that a Mr. Cartwright owns the farm and ranch. The CTB granted him two or three breaks in the limited access line and the right-of-way fence in the 2005 upgrade project so that he can get his farm equipment across the highway. This should not be allowed in Interstate standards, so this issue will need to be resolved in some manner that provides him access to both sides of the highway.
Quote from: NE2 on June 30, 2017, 08:57:16 PM
Glencoe would need an overpass too for the house(s?) just east of the trail.
Accomplished by allowing access along the trail north from Ballahack, as about half of this is already open for access to a boat ramp
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2017, 09:55:53 PM
VA US-17 north of Scenic Parkway is now a 4-lane freeway that I believe meets Interstate standards.
VA US-17 south of Scenic Parkway is an at-grade expressway, it has a limited access right-of-way. That means the at-grade intersections would need to have overpass bridges built over US-17, and ramps added at some of them. That is technically the only improvements that would be needed for Interstate standards.
Grassfield Pkwy is still an at-grade intersection with stoplights just south of VA 165
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4wPUthI.png&hash=74728b39ee8af58baa19c52b303a0ece32fdcdf7)
87 continues its westward creep on Google Maps. Now it's all the way to the 440 split!!!
LOL! Wow. somebody had too much time smoking something.... :-D
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!
Quote from: TimQuiQui on July 17, 2017, 10:33:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4wPUthI.png&hash=74728b39ee8af58baa19c52b303a0ece32fdcdf7)
87 continues its westward creep on Google Maps. Now it's all the way to the 440 split!!!
Pffft. I'm won't be inpressed until it takes over US-1 and goes to I-20 in SC. Go big or go home. :spin:
Isn't there a thread called "Google Maps Sucks"? Apparently this symbolizes why that thread exists to the T!
Quote from: LM117 on July 18, 2017, 07:01:35 AM
Pffft. I'm won't be inpressed until it takes over US-1 and goes to I-20 in SC. Go big or go home. :spin:
Well, if you really want to go big: take I-87 to I-20, multiplex it to Augusta, then take over the proposed I-14 route. After all, I-85 in Alabama goes practically east-west, why not I-87?
(No, I'm not in the least bit serious here.)
QuoteWell, if you really want to go big: take I-87 to I-20, multiplex it to Augusta, then take over the proposed I-14 route. After all, I-85 in Alabama goes practically east-west, why not I-87?
(No, I'm not in the least bit serious here.)
It would fit the grid being east of I-85 :).
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 11:48:51 PM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!
*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2017, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 11:48:51 PM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!
*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
It's already got the informal nickname of 'The Southway'.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 22, 2017, 10:40:16 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2017, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 11:48:51 PM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!
*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
It's already got the informal nickname of 'The Southway'.
I
still think it should be called the
"Jimmie Johnson/Rick Hendrick Championship Freeway" and the number changed to I-48 (for obvious reasons - actually, more than one!). Then get the Hendrick group to pony up some bucks for signage. Win-win for all concerned!
Quote from: sparker on July 22, 2017, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 22, 2017, 10:40:16 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2017, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 11:48:51 PM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!
*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
It's already got the informal nickname of 'The Southway'.
I still think it should be called the "Jimmie Johnson/Rick Hendrick Championship Freeway" and the number changed to I-48 (for obvious reasons - actually, more than one!). Then get the Hendrick group to pony up some bucks for signage. Win-win for all concerned!
Jeff Gordon might feel slighted, he only has 1.6 miles of I-85 named after him.
And don't give NCDOT any ideas, they'll try to number it I-3 and call it the "Dale Earnhardt Memorial Freeway."
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2017, 03:15:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 22, 2017, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 22, 2017, 10:40:16 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2017, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 11:48:51 PM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!
*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
It's already got the informal nickname of 'The Southway'.
I still think it should be called the "Jimmie Johnson/Rick Hendrick Championship Freeway" and the number changed to I-48 (for obvious reasons - actually, more than one!). Then get the Hendrick group to pony up some bucks for signage. Win-win for all concerned!
Jeff Gordon might feel slighted, he only has 1.6 miles of I-85 named after him.
And don't give NCDOT any ideas, they'll try to number it I-3 and call it the "Dale Earnhardt Memorial Freeway."
NCDOT already moved NC 3 to the Concord area for just that reason; that might keep them satisfied for the time being! At least my number fits the damn grid! And since Gordon is a Vallejo native up here in Bay country, maybe we should slap his name on CA 24, since it's not too far from his hometown -- and he probably raced on dirt tracks in the area when he was a kid in any case!
Quote from: TimQuiQui on July 17, 2017, 10:33:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4wPUthI.png&hash=74728b39ee8af58baa19c52b303a0ece32fdcdf7)
87 continues its westward creep on Google Maps. Now it's all the way to the 440 split!!!
I think the real problem with Google Maps jumping the gun is that it misleads drivers. If I'm southbound on I-95 headed for Raleigh, and Google Maps tells me to take I-87, I'm looking for signs that say I-87. I wouldn't think to exit on US 64. I'm sure plenty of drivers will just "in one half mile take the exit right", but, still, any mapmaker should try to be accurate.
Quote from: Sam on July 22, 2017, 09:57:11 PM
I think the real problem with Google Maps jumping the gun is that it misleads drivers. If I'm southbound on I-95 headed for Raleigh, and Google Maps tells me to take I-87, I'm looking for signs that say I-87. I wouldn't think to exit on US 64. I'm sure plenty of drivers will just "in one half mile take the exit right", but, still, any mapmaker should try to be accurate.
It doesn't only mislead drivers, but wikipedia editors who do not use official sources. :banghead:
Isn't our bipolar buddy on here one of the editors of Wiki? You know the big troll who has all the time in the world to be on line.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 23, 2017, 01:03:40 PM
Isn't our bipolar buddy on here one of the editors of Wiki? You know the big troll who has all the time in the world to be on line.
Well, anyone can make edits on wikipedia, so the people I swat reverts on are usually anonymous.
Yes I imagine so. Heck the one in question could just do it just to be funny. That is why you cannot trust wiki one hundred percent.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2017, 04:54:05 PM
That is why you cannot trust wiki one hundred percent.
I think of wikipedia as expressing an Internet consensus rather than anything else. A consensus can be and often is wrong.
Well its whats in the field verses what is legislated rather than wiki verses the DOTs.
NCDOT has begun the process of removing the Future I-495 signs - at least in Nash County. I first caught on to thus after the NC 581 exit thus morning. I will confirm how much further West on my way home from work this evening.
The standard I-495 signs in Wake County still remain and may take a little longer as overheads will need to be replaced or updated.
Interstate 87 shields are in the process of being installed on the Knightdale Bypass.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/300176946738649?view=permalink&id=1487186911370974
Well I guess now it's official. Though I still think the state should've held off with the postings until US 64 out to at least I-95 is improved.
Quote from: plain on September 05, 2017, 09:40:54 PM
Well I guess now it's official. Though I still think the state should've held off with the postings until US 64 out to at least I-95 is improved.
That wasn't going to happen, they are still years away from completing that stretch. However, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.
follow up with the blog entry with some of the new signing plans and changes to the exit numbers along the Knightdale Bypass for I-87.
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html
Aaaaaaargh! Looks like the misbegotten I-87 is now fact rather than mistake-to-be-corrected! Well, this just nails it -- 2016 will go down in history as The Year Of Bad Decisions. :ded: I'll leave it to the rest of you to ponder what the others were.
(Alternately: the year of deliberate stupidity!) :banghead:
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 12:47:25 AM
Aaaaaaargh! Looks like the misbegotten I-87 is now fact rather than mistake-to-be-corrected! Well, this just nails it -- 2016 will go down in history as The Year Of Bad Decisions. :ded: I'll leave it to the rest of you to ponder what the others were.
(Alternately: the year of deliberate stupidity!) :banghead:
It -is- a stupid decision, as I argued before no Interstate highway is warrented in this corridor in the first place, at least not east of I-95.
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 12:47:25 AM
Aaaaaaargh! Looks like the misbegotten I-87 is now fact rather than mistake-to-be-corrected! Well, this just nails it -- 2016 will go down in history as The Year Of Bad Decisions. :ded: I'll leave it to the rest of you to ponder what the others were.
(Alternately: the year of deliberate stupidity!) :banghead:
In fairness, the only folks that care about the decision to number this I-87 reside in this and/or similar forums.
The east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon or that they should spend the money signing the road to fix some local intersection du jour.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 07:07:33 AM
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 12:47:25 AM
Aaaaaaargh! Looks like the misbegotten I-87 is now fact rather than mistake-to-be-corrected! Well, this just nails it -- 2016 will go down in history as The Year Of Bad Decisions. :ded: I'll leave it to the rest of you to ponder what the others were.
(Alternately: the year of deliberate stupidity!) :banghead:
In fairness, the only folks that care about the decision to number this I-87 reside in this and/or similar forums.
The east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon or that they should spend the money signing the road to fix some local intersection du jour.
Oh and the exit number changes that's the biggest gripe by locals.
Regarding Adam's blog post...
- Based on those sign plans, looks like I-87 and I-440 will be co-signed on that corner of the Beltline.
- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?
Great to see that the I-87 signs are finally up :clap:
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2017, 07:35:24 AM
- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?
Looks like it was only on signs with an I-87 shield - perhaps to highlight which ones are different from current ones in the field (though they missed one from the I-40 WB perspective...)?
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on September 06, 2017, 08:15:07 AM
Great to see that the I-87 signs are finally up :clap:
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?
You want 587 to duplex with 87 for 20 miles? I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to request this.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on September 05, 2017, 08:32:36 PM
Interstate 87 shields are in the process of being installed on the Knightdale Bypass.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/300176946738649?view=permalink&id=1487186911370974
About time.
Quote from: HazMatt on September 06, 2017, 09:43:51 AM
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on September 06, 2017, 08:15:07 AM
Great to see that the I-87 signs are finally up :clap:
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?
You want 587 to duplex with 87 for 20 miles? I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to request this.
Please don't tempt them...
Quote from: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 07:07:33 AMThe east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon
A legit complaint, IMO.
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:32:07 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 07:07:33 AMThe east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon
A legit complaint, IMO.
Very legit. The Zebulon exit on 64 could use some work as well. Right now, it causes issues when people are getting onto 64 from that exit competing with people trying to get on to the next exit for US 264. with both US highways having future interstate access, I imagine both interchanges will need some work done to make it flow easier.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 05, 2017, 09:57:54 PMHowever, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.
The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)
However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.
QuoteAASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization's route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.
Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on September 06, 2017, 08:15:07 AM
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?
No. I-587 will begin at the 64/264 split in Zebulon and end at Exit 73 on the western outskirts of Greenville. I still have some hope left that NCDOT will come to their senses and truncate US-264 back to Zebulon.
Quote from: michealbond on September 06, 2017, 12:49:59 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:32:07 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 07:07:33 AMThe east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon
A legit complaint, IMO.
Very legit. The Zebulon exit on 64 could use some work as well. Right now, it causes issues when people are getting onto 64 from that exit competing with people trying to get on to the next exit for US 264. with both US highways having future interstate access, I imagine both interchanges will need some work done to make it flow easier.
I noticed that too when I passed through on my way to Wilson last year. Traffic between the Knightdale Bypass and the Zebulon split was pretty heavy. Beyond that, it was smooth sailing.
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on September 06, 2017, 08:15:07 AM
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?
No. I-587 will begin at the 64/264 split in Zebulon and end at Exit 73 on the western outskirts of Greenville. I still have some hope left that NCDOT will come to their senses and truncate US-264 back to Zebulon.
264 was extended to the Beltline because they or it was decided to have a continuous route designation from Raleigh to Greenville. That's also why you saw so many Greenville auxiliary signs added to overheads at one point. I have no issue with 264 as it is with the extension to Raleigh.
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 01:10:30 PM
Quote from: michealbond on September 06, 2017, 12:49:59 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:32:07 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 07:07:33 AMThe east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon
A legit complaint, IMO.
Very legit. The Zebulon exit on 64 could use some work as well. Right now, it causes issues when people are getting onto 64 from that exit competing with people trying to get on to the next exit for US 264. with both US highways having future interstate access, I imagine both interchanges will need some work done to make it flow easier.
I noticed that too when I passed through on my way to Wilson last year. Traffic between the Knightdale Bypass and the Zebulon split was pretty heavy. Beyond that, it was smooth sailing.
The state does have plans to widen 64/264 from Wendell to the Zebulon split to 6 lanes. I don't know where it is at on the current STIP. Haven't looked yet. (They also have floated widening the Knightdale Bypass to 8 lanes.)
The congestion occurs heavily at rush hour. Since I reverse commute I always see the backups and they can be lengthy when a wreck. Typically wrecks happen at the interchange or somewhere westbound along the downhill grade from lizard lick road to Rolesville Road.
A quick fix for the split at zebulon. Add an exit only auxiliary lane from NC96 to the split. I think the only obstacle may be that they would have to lengthen the overpass that carries Shepherd School Road over the highway.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 01:51:24 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on September 06, 2017, 08:15:07 AM
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?
No. I-587 will begin at the 64/264 split in Zebulon and end at Exit 73 on the western outskirts of Greenville. I still have some hope left that NCDOT will come to their senses and truncate US-264 back to Zebulon.
264 was extended to the Beltline because they or it was decided to have a continuous route designation from Raleigh to Greenville. That's also why you saw so many Greenville auxiliary signs added to overheads at one point. I have no issue with 264 as it is with the extension to Raleigh.
I feel like North Carolina gets too caught up on route numbers, at least more than most states. The average person doesn't care if US 264 ends at the Zebulon junction (it may as well anyway). It would probably be easier for navigational purposes if mileage on US 264 just started at the Zebulon junction.
I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2017, 07:35:24 AM
Regarding Adam's blog post...
- Based on those sign plans, looks like I-87 and I-440 will be co-signed on that corner of the Beltline.
- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?
Just like I mentioned in the past, NCDOT is not going to get rid of I-440 just like many people thought. I live in the state and knows if they plan on doing it, they will say it.
Quote from: Strider on September 06, 2017, 02:49:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2017, 07:35:24 AM
Regarding Adam's blog post...
- Based on those sign plans, looks like I-87 and I-440 will be co-signed on that corner of the Beltline.
- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?
Just like I mentioned in the past, NCDOT is not going to get rid of I-440 just like many people thought. I live in the state and knows if they plan on doing it, they will say it.
I also live in this state and have seen numerous examples of the original designation plans changing..oh I don't know something about the Greensboro outer loop comes to mind.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 02:58:52 PM
Quote from: Strider on September 06, 2017, 02:49:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2017, 07:35:24 AM
Regarding Adam's blog post...
- Based on those sign plans, looks like I-87 and I-440 will be co-signed on that corner of the Beltline.
- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?
Just like I mentioned in the past, NCDOT is not going to get rid of I-440 just like many people thought. I live in the state and knows if they plan on doing it, they will say it.
I also live in this state and have seen numerous examples of the original designation plans changing..oh I don't know something about the Greensboro outer loop comes to mind.
They only changed I-40/I-85/US 421 routing, everything else remains the just as planned ever since.
however, there is never a plan to change I-440 routing, even with I-87 in place.
It looks like the I-87 shields are up and visible.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:50:45 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 05, 2017, 09:57:54 PMHowever, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.
The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)
However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.
QuoteAASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization's route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.
Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:
......One bad decision compounded by another. Seeing that there's more E-W trajectory than N-S here, it should have, by all means, been an
unused even number between 46 and 56. :eyebrow:
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 02:26:56 PM
I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.
At least NCDOT would maintain it! And you'd have a diamond shield to call your own -- or steal and put up on your wall, then call NCDOT for a (series of) replacement(s)! :sombrero:
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 04:33:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:50:45 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 05, 2017, 09:57:54 PMHowever, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.
The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)
However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.
QuoteAASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization's route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.
Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:
......One bad decision compounded by another. Seeing that there's more E-W trajectory than N-S here, it should have, by all means, been an unused even number between 46 and 56. :eyebrow:
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 02:26:56 PM
I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.
At least NCDOT would maintain it! And you'd have a diamond shield to call your own -- or steal and put up on your wall, then call NCDOT for a (series of) replacement(s)! :sombrero:
What everyone is forgetting is that NCDOT originally petitioned the FHWA administratively for I-44 - they obviously rejected it but could have given guidance on route numbering. I would suspect that the initial N/S 89 proposal came from that guidance.
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 04:33:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:50:45 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 05, 2017, 09:57:54 PMHowever, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.
The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)
However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.
QuoteAASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization's route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.
Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:
......One bad decision compounded by another. Seeing that there's more E-W trajectory than N-S here, it should have, by all means, been an unused even number between 46 and 56. :eyebrow:
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 02:26:56 PM
I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.
At least NCDOT would maintain it! And you'd have a diamond shield to call your own -- or steal and put up on your wall, then call NCDOT for a (series of) replacement(s)! :sombrero:
Should have been I-46. VA and NC's 46s are one two-state route, so easier renumbering.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 04:33:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:50:45 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 05, 2017, 09:57:54 PMHowever, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.
The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)
However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.
QuoteAASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization's route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.
Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:
......One bad decision compounded by another. Seeing that there's more E-W trajectory than N-S here, it should have, by all means, been an unused even number between 46 and 56. :eyebrow:
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 02:26:56 PM
I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.
At least NCDOT would maintain it! And you'd have a diamond shield to call your own -- or steal and put up on your wall, then call NCDOT for a (series of) replacement(s)! :sombrero:
What everyone is forgetting is that NCDOT originally petitioned the FHWA administratively for I-44 - they obviously rejected it but could have given guidance on route numbering. I would suspect that the initial N/S 89 proposal came from that guidance.
IIRC, NCDOT's reasoning behind asking for an odd rather than even designation was conflict with nearby state routes; all the available even numbers, after 44 was eliminated, were duplicated by nearby state highways (46, 48, 54, 56), after 52 & 58 were set aside because of U.S. duplication in either NC or VA. What is irrational about the process is that AASHTO summarily threw out the state highway duplication rationale -- but
kept the shift to the odd set of numbers intact! -- which, even if such a decision had a basis in rational thought, might have yielded "I-97" rather than "I-87" as the most appropriate odd designation -- as there's more of a chance of connecting the two 97's than any other choice -- and most of the corridor alignment lies
east of I-95!
I guess I'm just not a fan of irrational processes, be they deliberate or simply misguided
(or, as I've previously surmised, the result of an open bar at a SCOURN meeting!).
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 05:41:46 PM
IIRC, NCDOT's reasoning behind asking for an odd rather than even designation was conflict with nearby state routes; all the available even numbers, after 44 was eliminated, were duplicated by nearby state highways (46, 48, 54, 56), after 52 & 58 were set aside because of U.S. duplication in either NC or VA. What is irrational about the process is that AASHTO summarily threw out the state highway duplication rationale -- but kept the shift to the odd set of numbers intact! -- which, even if such a decision had a basis in rational thought, might have yielded "I-97" rather than "I-87" as the most appropriate odd designation -- as there's more of a chance of connecting the two 97's than any other choice -- and most of the corridor alignment lies east of I-95!
I guess I'm just not a fan of irrational processes, be they deliberate or simply misguided
(or, as I've previously surmised, the result of an open bar at a SCOURN meeting!).
As someone else pointed out, this would result in two different I-87s each of which would junction I-95 in a different state, and only a few hundred miles apart. That could indeed cause motorist confusion.
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
Yeah -- now NCDOT can ask for the "east quadrant" N-S route along NC 11 between Bethel and Kinston to be designated as I-187, and have Snoop Dogg pose under one of the reassurance shields! :awesomeface:
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
I-87 has to be the only interstate where this happens, right?
Connecting the 87s would be a matter of throwing an I-87 shield in I-64 from Hampton Roads to Richmond and then from Richmond to NYC. A completely nonsensical way to connect the two and basically creates an interstate highway whose southern portion looks like > but I'm not the one in charge. The interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
I-87 has to be the only interstate where this happens, right?
Connecting the 87s would be a matter of throwing an I-87 shield in I-64 from Hampton Roads to Richmond and then from Richmond to NYC. A completely nonsensical way to connect the two and basically creates an interstate highway whose southern portion looks like > but I'm not the one in charge. The interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.
The other four interstate designations applying to two separate sections -- 76, 84, 86, and 88 -- received their duplicate designation simply because
there were zero unused even numbers anywhere near their grid position available for use on the 2nd section. There was never any serious thought given to connecting any of those two- section routes. Any statement by any official regarding connection of the two sections of I-87 is at best disingenuous and at worst a basic pull-it-out-of-your-ass attempt at rationalization of an error in judgment.
That being said, the only connecting alignment with even a miniscule amount of reason behind it would be up Delmarva by whatever means necessary to I-95 at the DE 1 interchange, then up and across the Delaware Memorial -- and finally giving the lower NJT an Interstate designation before multiplexing with I-95 up to I-278, then replacing I-278 on the Verrazano Bridge and the BQE (hang on to your hats, long-distance drivers!!!) up to the south end of north I-87. A couple of multiplexes with I-95 in DE and NJ (they're relatively short compared with other 2 di MPX's) could be within tolerance of such things. One problem -- the probability of an Delmarva Interstate facility south of the VA/MD state line is miniscule -- just no place to put it without pissing off a lot of registered voters!
And since that AASHTO statement came out of the De Moines meeting that I've long tentatively categorized as likely alcohol-driven -- I'll amend my analysis to include the possibility that the statement's author was either (a) smoking something quasi-legalized as well, or (b) unbelievably naive and/or ill-informed if he or she thought the two I-87's would eventually be as one!
Maybe one of
us, if in the area, should make it a point to hang around the next SCOURN meeting and pipe up when decisions like this are imminent. I'll volunteer for anything in Northern California or even Reno/Tahoe! :wave:
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 05:48:05 PMAs someone else pointed out, this would result in two different I-87s each of which would junction I-95 in a different state, and only a few hundred miles apart. That could indeed cause motorist confusion.
I seriously doubt there will be any confusion. There's still a good deal of distance between the two and I bet there's very few people in NY (other than those that frequent this forum) that is even aware that there's another I-87 existing elsewhere.
I'm not a fan of the I-87 number either, but I don't see the number causing a problem.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PMThe interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.
Definitely not happening. The cost of upgrading the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the environmentally sensitive strip of land known as the Eastern Shore (along with it's hardcore NIMBY residents) will kill any offical talk of such an extension in a New York minute.
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 09:37:14 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PMThe interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.
Definitely not happening. The cost of upgrading the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the environmentally sensitive strip of land known as the Eastern Shore (along with it's hardcore NIMBY residents) will kill any offical talk of such an extension in a New York minute.
The CBBT tunnels will be paralleled, one starting this year, and the other is not funded yet but the CBBTD is committed to doing it as soon as practicable. No reason why CBBT couldn't be designated as an Interstate after it is all 4 lanes divided.
But the Eastern Shore Interstate has been studied by VDOT and deemed infeasible for the reasons above.
Plus there would be the issue of needing to upgrade the segment between I-64 and CBBT to Interstate standards.
Plus Maryland and Delaware have not studied it, as far as I know.
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 09:37:14 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PMThe interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.
Definitely not happening. The cost of upgrading the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the environmentally sensitive strip of land known as the Eastern Shore (along with it's hardcore NIMBY residents) will kill any offical talk of such an extension in a New York minute.
The CBBT tunnels will be paralleled, one starting this year, and the other is not funded yet but the CBBTD is committed to doing it as soon as practicable. No reason why CBBT couldn't be designated as an Interstate after it is all 4 lanes divided.
The northbound bridge has no shoulders and neither does the existing tunnels. Unless FHWA grants a waiver or if Congress steps in, the CBBT cannot become part of an interstate.
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
Plus Maryland and Delaware have not studied it, as far as I know.
Maryland and Delaware were part of the 2006 VODT study of I-99. Delaware has at least looked at what it would take to make it happen and it sounded like Maryland had not...
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
The CBBT tunnels will be paralleled, one starting this year, and the other is not funded yet but the CBBTD is committed to doing it as soon as practicable. No reason why CBBT couldn't be designated as an Interstate after it is all 4 lanes divided.
The northbound bridge has no shoulders and neither does the existing tunnels. Unless FHWA grants a waiver or if Congress steps in, the CBBT cannot become part of an interstate.
The northbound bridge does have shoulders, just not wide enough to stop a car on. It has emergency stopping bays about 1.5 miles apart that are wide enough for a car or truck.
Many bridges with such narrow shoulders were built under the federally aided Interstate system, so that should not be an issue on the CBBT.
I don't know of any major underwater highway tunnel in the world let alone on the Interstate system that has shoulders wide enough to stop a car on. There are 3 Interstate tunnels in the Hampton Roads area in this category, and 2 in Baltimore.
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 07, 2017, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
Plus Maryland and Delaware have not studied it, as far as I know.
Maryland and Delaware were part of the 2006 VODT study of I-99. Delaware has at least looked at what it would take to make it happen and it sounded like Maryland had not...
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf
OK, that is what it was, Maryland would be the missing link in any such Interstate highway proposal.
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 02:37:28 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
The CBBT tunnels will be paralleled, one starting this year, and the other is not funded yet but the CBBTD is committed to doing it as soon as practicable. No reason why CBBT couldn't be designated as an Interstate after it is all 4 lanes divided.
The northbound bridge has no shoulders and neither does the existing tunnels. Unless FHWA grants a waiver or if Congress steps in, the CBBT cannot become part of an interstate.
The northbound bridge does have shoulders, just not wide enough to stop a car on.
That's an understatement. There's nothing but paint!
https://goo.gl/maps/k4tUpv4HekJ2 (https://goo.gl/maps/k4tUpv4HekJ2)
QuoteMany bridges with such narrow shoulders were built under the federally aided Interstate system, so that should not be an issue on the CBBT.
True, but the standards have changed since then and many of the bridges were grandfathered in. Current interstate standards call for 10ft. wide outside shoulders and 4ft. inside shoulders. VDOT would still need to either request a waiver from FHWA or somehow work with the CBBT Commission to bring the bridge to interstate standards. FHWA would likely grant a waiver for the tunnels, but I wouldn't hold my breath about the bridge, given the length of it.
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 06:33:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 02:37:28 PM
Many bridges with such narrow shoulders were built under the federally aided Interstate system, so that should not be an issue on the CBBT.
True, but the standards have changed since then and many of the bridges were grandfathered in. Current interstate standards call for 10ft. wide outside shoulders and 4ft. inside shoulders. VDOT would still need to either request a waiver from FHWA or somehow work with the CBBT Commission to bring the bridge to interstate standards. FHWA would likely grant a waiver for the tunnels, but I wouldn't hold my breath about the bridge, given the length of it.
National Interstate standards have called for those widths since at least 1970. Nevertheless numerous Interstate bridges have been built with narrower shoulder widths or were preexisting and incorporated into the Interstate system since then.
The PA Turnpike Northeast Extension was incorporated into the Interstate system as recently as 1996, and there are numerous bridges with no shoulder.
And as I said, there are no Interstate major underwater tunnels that have a shoulder wide enough to stop on, too expensive to build.
There is no need to make the CBBT an Interstate unless it is part of an Interstate route, and the reasons have already been posted as to why that won't happen on the Delmarva Peninsula.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
In NY I-87 where it meets I-95 is referred to by its expressway name: The Major Deegan Expressway. I don't think any confusion will occur.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2017, 03:50:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
In NY I-87 where it meets I-95 is referred to by its expressway name: The Major Deegan Expressway. I don't think any confusion will occur.
Any traveler that passes both junctions on the same trip may wonder what the heck is going on. Plenty of motorists pass both junctions on one trip. THSDOT does it again! :wow:
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 08:44:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2017, 03:50:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
In NY I-87 where it meets I-95 is referred to by its expressway name: The Major Deegan Expressway. I don't think any confusion will occur.
Any traveler that passes both junctions on the same trip may wonder what the heck is going on.
We already have this situation for I-76 and I-80.
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2017, 08:48:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 08:44:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2017, 03:50:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
In NY I-87 where it meets I-95 is referred to by its expressway name: The Major Deegan Expressway. I don't think any confusion will occur.
Any traveler that passes both junctions on the same trip may wonder what the heck is going on.
We already have this situation for I-76 and I-80.
But what, 2,000 miles apart?
What about the many state route and US route duplications along interstates that intersect in such a short period?
NC 58 and US 58 less than 100 miles apart along I-95. Heck I got a better one FL 10 and I-10 in Jacksonville real close to each other.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2017, 11:25:19 AM
What about the many state route and US route duplications along interstates that intersect in such a short period?
NC 58 and US 58 less than 100 miles apart along I-95. Heck I got a better one FL 10 and I-10 in Jacksonville real close to each other.
What about them?
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.
NCDOT has posted their recent feasibility study (dated 8-16-2017) for upgrading US-64 to interstate standards between Rolesville Road east of Knightdale and US-17 in Williamston. Alternatives include the possibility of widening US-64 to either 6 or 8 lanes between Rolesville Road and the 64/264 split in Zebulon, as well as making improvements through Rocky Mount to allow the speed limit to be increased to 70mph through the city.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf)
Has there been any maps put out yet showing the potential routings northeast of Williamston?
I don't think it's gotten to that level of study yet.
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2017, 12:31:55 PM
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.
NCDOT apparently doesn't think there is any confusion potential for overlapping US-74 and I-74 on the same highway, when the two routes ultimately diverge. :hmmm:
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 11:23:35 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2017, 12:31:55 PM
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.
NCDOT apparently doesn't think there is any confusion potential for overlapping US-74 and I-74 on the same highway, when the two routes ultimately diverge. :hmmm:
That is because the travelers that do get confused implode from trying to make a decision. Since they don't survive, they cannot complain.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 10, 2017, 12:15:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 11:23:35 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2017, 12:31:55 PM
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.
NCDOT apparently doesn't think there is any confusion potential for overlapping US-74 and I-74 on the same highway, when the two routes ultimately diverge. :hmmm:
That is because the travelers that do get confused implode from trying to make a decision. Since they don't survive, they cannot complain.
Or else they take the wrong branch and they go out into hyperspace, never to return to Earth.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 10, 2017, 12:15:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 11:23:35 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2017, 12:31:55 PM
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.
NCDOT apparently doesn't think there is any confusion potential for overlapping US-74 and I-74 on the same highway, when the two routes ultimately diverge. :hmmm:
That is because the travelers that do get confused implode from trying to make a decision. Since they don't survive, they cannot complain.
I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line US 74 is decommissioned; of course, this would be contingent upon both the Columbus-Kings Mountain and Charlotte (or at least I-485) to Rockingham segments being subsumed by Interstate designations -- which appears to now be a NC tradition! West of Asheville, there's only a few miles where US 74 is not multiplexed with other routes; that too could readily go by the wayside, rendering the entire route -- at least functionally -- as fully duplicative.
Quote from: sparker on September 10, 2017, 02:41:27 AM
I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line US 74 is decommissioned; of course, this would be contingent upon both the Columbus-Kings Mountain and Charlotte (or at least I-485) to Rockingham segments being subsumed by Interstate designations -- which appears to now be a NC tradition! West of Asheville, there's only a few miles where US 74 is not multiplexed with other routes; that too could readily go by the wayside, rendering the entire route -- at least functionally -- as fully duplicative.
It is actually Western North Carolina that is probably anchoring US 74 in place. It was extended west in the '80s to established a central route through the region; US 64 takes a more southern route and US 19 takes a more northern route and then leaves early towards Atlanta. It also overlaps an ADHS corridor, with the Great Smoky Mountains Expressway as its crowning section; they are currently building new road around Robbinsville, bypassing the Nantahala Gorge.
No, US 74 will not be decommissioned.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 10, 2017, 04:29:55 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 10, 2017, 02:41:27 AM
I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line US 74 is decommissioned; of course, this would be contingent upon both the Columbus-Kings Mountain and Charlotte (or at least I-485) to Rockingham segments being subsumed by Interstate designations -- which appears to now be a NC tradition! West of Asheville, there's only a few miles where US 74 is not multiplexed with other routes; that too could readily go by the wayside, rendering the entire route -- at least functionally -- as fully duplicative.
It is actually Western North Carolina that is probably anchoring US 74 in place. It was extended west in the '80s to established a central route through the region; US 64 takes a more southern route and US 19 takes a more northern route and then leaves early towards Atlanta. It also overlaps an ADHS corridor, with the Great Smoky Mountains Expressway as its crowning section; they are currently building new road around Robbinsville, bypassing the Nantahala Gorge.
No, US 74 will not be decommissioned.
If the US 74 designation is applied to the Nantahala bypass, with US 19 remaining on the "scenic" route through the gorge itself, then I'd have to concur that US 74 is certainly viable for the segment west of I-40. Actually -- giving it a 2nd look -- Alternate 74 east of Asheville could conceivably reassume its previous "mainline" status as far as 74 is concerned; and with the under-development Shelby bypass well north of that town, US 74 (as has been done previously elsewhere within NC) would simply continue to be signed along the "in-town" route; even with that bypass given Interstate status in the future. The same would go for the segment between Charlotte and Rockingham; US 74 could and would remain on its current alignment, with a new Interstate designation applied to both the nascent toll road and any eastern extension toward Rockingham.
However, the portion with the twin Interstate and US 74 designations might be in jeopardy once the Interstate-grade segments are completed; it would likely be more appropriate to label the historic US 74 alignment as "Business I-74" with the usual green shields rather than just continue to schlep US 74 down through those towns. In the long haul,
that might be a bit confusing. Ironically, because of the identical numbers, US 74 works well as a "placeholder" for I-74, particularly as a connector between the Interstate segments. But as a permanent multiplex or parallel route, less so! So I'll revise my evaluation to say that US 74 could conceivably stay viable west of Rockingham if NCDOT elects to keep signing the original alignment as such even if Interstate status is afforded any parallel freeway.
Quote from: sparker on September 10, 2017, 07:24:08 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 10, 2017, 04:29:55 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 10, 2017, 02:41:27 AM
I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line US 74 is decommissioned; of course, this would be contingent upon both the Columbus-Kings Mountain and Charlotte (or at least I-485) to Rockingham segments being subsumed by Interstate designations -- which appears to now be a NC tradition! West of Asheville, there's only a few miles where US 74 is not multiplexed with other routes; that too could readily go by the wayside, rendering the entire route -- at least functionally -- as fully duplicative.
It is actually Western North Carolina that is probably anchoring US 74 in place. It was extended west in the '80s to established a central route through the region; US 64 takes a more southern route and US 19 takes a more northern route and then leaves early towards Atlanta. It also overlaps an ADHS corridor, with the Great Smoky Mountains Expressway as its crowning section; they are currently building new road around Robbinsville, bypassing the Nantahala Gorge.
No, US 74 will not be decommissioned.
If the US 74 designation is applied to the Nantahala bypass, with US 19 remaining on the "scenic" route through the gorge itself, then I'd have to concur that US 74 is certainly viable for the segment west of I-40. Actually -- giving it a 2nd look -- Alternate 74 east of Asheville could conceivably reassume its previous "mainline" status as far as 74 is concerned; and with the under-development Shelby bypass well north of that town, US 74 (as has been done previously elsewhere within NC) would simply continue to be signed along the "in-town" route; even with that bypass given Interstate status in the future. The same would go for the segment between Charlotte and Rockingham; US 74 could and would remain on its current alignment, with a new Interstate designation applied to both the nascent toll road and any eastern extension toward Rockingham.
However, the portion with the twin Interstate and US 74 designations might be in jeopardy once the Interstate-grade segments are completed; it would likely be more appropriate to label the historic US 74 alignment as "Business I-74" with the usual green shields rather than just continue to schlep US 74 down through those towns. In the long haul, that might be a bit confusing. Ironically, because of the identical numbers, US 74 works well as a "placeholder" for I-74, particularly as a connector between the Interstate segments. But as a permanent multiplex or parallel route, less so! So I'll revise my evaluation to say that US 74 could conceivably stay viable west of Rockingham if NCDOT elects to keep signing the original alignment as such even if Interstate status is afforded any parallel freeway.
The only other option would to have a completely different number replacing US 74 in some way if we really want to end duplication, but that isn't going to happen. Right now for Shelby and Monroe they are going to use "US 74 Bypass" for those new routes and leave mainland US 74 alone, which means if one day those section become part of an interstate they wouldn't have to change anything. I agree that US 74 could revert back to its Alternate routing between Asheville and Forest City if an interstate is numbered between I-26 and I-85; a spur of I-73 or I-74 could do the same between Rockingham and I-485. There are several choice NCDOT could go with in the future, so who knows.
I'm confused as to why the NCDOT hasn't tried to build an interstate across the entirety of the current US 74 corridor. I always feel like that gets overlooked. Connecting Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington via one interstate route should take some priority.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 11, 2017, 08:11:12 PM
I'm confused as to why the NCDOT hasn't tried to build an interstate across the entirety of the current US 74 corridor. I always feel like that gets overlooked. Connecting Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington via one interstate route should take some priority.
Because they are blinded in getting Myrtle Beach, SC an interstate.
Yes US 74 should have an interstate from Charlotte to Wilmington and ideally using the freeways of US 74 west of where it breaks off of I-85. In the perfect world the section of US 52 north of Winston- Salem and the new US 311 upgrade should be an entirely different interstate with an x77 or x40 or even x73. Even if OH and WV build their parts of both I-73 and 74, I-74 should end in OH where it would meet I-73 north of Portsmouth then solo I-73 down to WV where the two would split, then 73 through Roanoke and then either I-46 or I-48 down through VA and even along US 52 and 311 to where 74 now meets I-73. I-73 would be solo and have a cross junction with the US 74 upgrade which could be I-32 or any even number in the 30's.
What is and what is supposed to be are two different realities in today's universe.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2017, 08:48:30 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 11, 2017, 08:11:12 PM
I'm confused as to why the NCDOT hasn't tried to build an interstate across the entirety of the current US 74 corridor. I always feel like that gets overlooked. Connecting Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington via one interstate route should take some priority.
Because they are blinded in getting Myrtle Beach, SC an interstate.
Yes US 74 should have an interstate from Charlotte to Wilmington and ideally using the freeways of US 74 west of where it breaks off of I-85. In the perfect world the section of US 52 north of Winston- Salem and the new US 311 upgrade should be an entirely different interstate with an x77 or x40 or even x73. Even if OH and WV build their parts of both I-73 and 74, I-74 should end in OH where it would meet I-73 north of Portsmouth then solo I-73 down to WV where the two would split, then 73 through Roanoke and then either I-46 or I-48 down through VA and even along US 52 and 311 to where 74 now meets I-73. I-73 would be solo and have a cross junction with the US 74 upgrade which could be I-32 or any even number in the 30's.
What is and what is supposed to be are two different realities in today's universe.
The reason for the convoluted nature of the 73/74 concept is called High Priority Corridor 5. Interregional connections that likely will never be made notwithstanding, the reason the part that
is being developed (albeit in bits & pieces) retains the original numbering concept is the same reason as the "placeholder" I-69E/I-69C/I-69W designations were applied and actually signed in places within Texas -- each concept is considered sacrosanct
as written within the circles of those backing and funding the projects. Equally likely -- each concept has structural and/or systemic weaknesses (duh!), and no party with anything to lose if the concepts are somehow ended or even truncated wants to fuck with the proverbial "golden goose", even if it only sporadically lays an egg or two. Calling attention to the fact that there is no action or even proposals for this corridor north of Roanoke -- or that the convolution of I-74 in SE NC and NE SC is a planning travesty -- might jeopardize the timely deployment of those corridor portions that are currently near-term projects. In short, no vested party wants to mess with the composite corridor's program -- and suggesting alternate numbers might well call attention to those issues no one involved wants to address.
Quote...each concept is considered sacrosanct as written within the circles of those backing and funding the projects.
Backing, but no longer funding. Much of the funding for the HPCs came from earmarks, which have been out of vogue in Congress for several years now.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2017, 08:48:30 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 11, 2017, 08:11:12 PM
I'm confused as to why the NCDOT hasn't tried to build an interstate across the entirety of the current US 74 corridor. I always feel like that gets overlooked. Connecting Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington via one interstate route should take some priority.
Because they are blinded in getting Myrtle Beach, SC an interstate.
Yes US 74 should have an interstate from Charlotte to Wilmington and ideally using the freeways of US 74 west of where it breaks off of I-85. In the perfect world the section of US 52 north of Winston- Salem and the new US 311 upgrade should be an entirely different interstate with an x77 or x40 or even x73. Even if OH and WV build their parts of both I-73 and 74, I-74 should end in OH where it would meet I-73 north of Portsmouth then solo I-73 down to WV where the two would split, then 73 through Roanoke and then either I-46 or I-48 down through VA and even along US 52 and 311 to where 74 now meets I-73. I-73 would be solo and have a cross junction with the US 74 upgrade which could be I-32 or any even number in the 30's.
What is and what is supposed to be are two different realities in today's universe.
Has nothing to do with 73 & myrtle beach. As early as 1963, NC has tried to get the US 74 corridor as an Interstate.
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/08/to-shore-north-carolinas-struggle-to.html?m=1
"
In 1963, North Carolina made one of their first attempts to extend the Interstate System within the state. The state petitioned for two extensions: One, a route from Durham via Raleigh to Morehead City, and the second, a route from Charlotte to Wilmington. "
"With the 1968 extensions in place, the state was very aggressive in making Interstate requests in 1970. The state would request routes for eleven new corridors totaling an estimated 673.9 miles. (4) Three of the requests would involve Morehead City and Wilmington. Two of the three corridor requests ended in Wilmington. The most lengthy was a 245.4 mile corridor from Asheville to Wilmington via Charlotte. This route would basically follow US 74. The second Wilmington corridor request ran 159 miles southeast from Greensboro. This proposal essentially followed modern US 421."
So instead the state has done steps to four lane 74 to Wilmington with various parts freeway, expressway, and basic divided highway. The ways to get interstates designated have changed since the 1960s and more aggressively since the 1990s.
Jp, you are incorrect when stating it's an obsession with Myrtle Beach and NCDOTs past history in trying to get a Charlotte to Wilmington interstate is reason why.
Quote from: froggie on September 12, 2017, 07:02:14 AM
Quote...each concept is considered sacrosanct as written within the circles of those backing and funding the projects.
Backing, but no longer funding. Much of the funding for the HPCs came from earmarks, which have been out of vogue in Congress for several years now.
Out of vogue in general (and within public proclamations) but still snuck in from time to time by wily old Congressfolks who know the ropes (and how to disguise earmarks as legislative modifications). As long as there's not an obvious trail to draw the attention of the extremes on either side, projects with specific targets can be occasionally steered through the process. It's certainly not like the old days of give-and-take and open-air tradeoffs -- but it
is still there -- but not openly acknowledged as such.
Update on the US-17 section of the corridor. Interesting is the mention of a possible connection to NC-168.
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/09/25/DOT-to-post-I-87-concept-maps-online.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/09/25/DOT-to-post-I-87-concept-maps-online.html)
QuoteThe NC Department of Transportation will soon make its concept maps of Interstate 87 available online, allowing the public to weigh in on the $1.35 billion project that will reshape travel through Williamston, Hertford and other communities on the way to Virginia.
NC DOT personnel agreed to make the maps available for review and comment at the urging of local officials at an Interstate 87 meeting in Elizabeth City last week. Even though planning for Interstate 87 remains in early stages, local officials said the public is already calling for more information on the project that could impact several communities and many property owners.
According to an email from DOT Transportation Engineer Shane York, the maps should soon be available at https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/projectsstudies/default.html?Counties=*&Region=*.
During the meeting, DOT's consulting firm, AECOM, explained how they might turn US Highway 17 into Interstate 87, documenting the sections of road that need widening and the intersections that need changing if the road is to become a high-speed, "restricted access" highway allowing unimpeded travel from Williamston to the Virginia state line. Interstate 87 would also include US Highway 64 from Raleigh to Williamston, a road already close to interstate standards, but AECOM focused solely on US 17 during the local meeting.
AECOM officials Christy Shumate and Laura Fisher said US 17 from Williamston to Virginia is about 80 miles long. For planning purposes, AECOM has broken that corridor down into 10 segments needing varying levels of work. In a followup email, York added about 24 miles of that road are already at "freeway" standards, meaning DOT only needs to widen US 17 from Windsor to Castelloe Road, from the Chowan River almost to Edenton, and along the roughly 11-mile Elizabeth City bypass.
Things get more complicated in Williamston, Windsor and in the Town of Hertford, where keeping US 17 on its current route would require overpasses and numerous service roads to be constructed. Fisher noted several alternative routes for parts of Interstate 87, including arcing it east of US 17 in Williamston before tying back into the bridge over the Roanoke River, diverting it west of US 17 south of Windsor so it cuts around Windsor before tying into the existing bypass, and diverting it west of US 17 north of Winfall to tie into an interchange on Chapanoke Road. That Chapanoke interchange would avoid impacts to numerous properties around the intersection of Chapanoke and existing US 17.
Fisher proposed no alternative to taking I-87 through Hertford; however, which would require a diamond interchange be built at the intersection of US 17 and South Church Street.
Additionally, Fisher presented an alternative to the final stretch of I-87 in Camden, which would create an interchange not only connecting to the Dismal Swamp Canal Welcome Center, but create a connection to US Highway 168 in Currituck. Fisher said AECOM added that route at the request of officials in Currituck and Virginia.
Though DOT and AECOM officials agreed to provide their current concept maps, they noted those maps have been developed before the release of a "feasibility study" that will include a more formal public comment period; that study is expected by year's end. As the name implies, the feasibility study is still a preliminary document itself; it sets the stage for submitting individual I-87 projects for possible state funding.
Quote from: LM117 on September 25, 2017, 08:36:39 PM
Update on the US-17 section of the corridor. Interesting is the mention of a possible connection to NC-168.
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/09/25/DOT-to-post-I-87-concept-maps-online.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/09/25/DOT-to-post-I-87-concept-maps-online.html)
QuoteThe NC Department of Transportation will soon make its concept maps of Interstate 87 available online, allowing the public to weigh in on the $1.35 billion project that will reshape travel through Williamston, Hertford and other communities on the way to Virginia.
About 70 miles of rural Interstate highway? No way they can build it for that cost today, it will be at least twice that.
The existing highway is in vast majority a nonlimited-access 4-lane highway, so they can't just upgrade that to Interstate standards without spending about the same per-mile cost of that of a new location Interstate highway.
If the Alligator Alley through the Everglades is any indication, they may try to build I-87 through the Great Dismal Swamp, although it will be far more expensive to build than what the NCDOT estimate is, unless tolls are somehow enacted elsewhere throughout the state. (IIRC, either I-85 or I-95 was going to be tolled from the VA line south; any updates on that plan?)
Quote from: Henry on September 26, 2017, 11:09:39 AM
(IIRC, either I-85 or I-95 was going to be tolled from the VA line south; any updates on that plan?)
It was I-95 but that idea was killed after massive opposition from towns/cities and businesses in eastern NC.
Quote from: LM117 on September 26, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 26, 2017, 11:09:39 AM
(IIRC, either I-85 or I-95 was going to be tolled from the VA line south; any updates on that plan?)
It was I-95 but that idea was killed after massive opposition from towns/cities and businesses in eastern NC.
And massive opposition from various trucking industry lobby groups, and various motorist advocacy lobby groups ...
Question: is the connection to NC 168 (and by extension VA 168) simply that -- a connecting access route -- or is it a fallback I-87 routing in case VA or the city of Chesapeake declines to improve US 17/Dominion Blvd. north to I-64? (In other words, a "shunt" of I-87 over to a route that is significantly more completed in VA.)
Quote from: sparker on September 26, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
Question: is the connection to NC 168 (and by extension VA 168) simply that -- a connecting access route -- or is it a fallback I-87 routing in case VA or the city of Chesapeake declines to improve US 17/Dominion Blvd. north to I-64? (In other words, a "shunt" of I-87 over to a route that is significantly more completed in VA.)
I suspect that VA is wanting I-87 to follow VA-168. Unlike US-17, the majority of VA-168 is almost interstate standard and wouldn't cost quite as much to upgrade as it would US-17, which still has at-grades remaining (some surrounded by businesses), even after the completion of the Dominion Blvd project. One can easily see why VA would favor using VA-168.
The big problem is that it would require a new routing in NC linking US-17 to 168. Given the cost and sensitive wetland it would go through (as well as the inevitable lawsuits), I highly doubt NCDOT would favor the 168 option.
US-17 benefits NC, VA-168 benefits VA. Catch 22.
Quote from: LM117 on September 26, 2017, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 26, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
Question: is the connection to NC 168 (and by extension VA 168) simply that -- a connecting access route -- or is it a fallback I-87 routing in case VA or the city of Chesapeake declines to improve US 17/Dominion Blvd. north to I-64? (In other words, a "shunt" of I-87 over to a route that is significantly more completed in VA.)
I suspect that VA is wanting I-87 to follow VA-168. Unlike US-17, the majority of VA-168 is almost interstate standard and wouldn't cost quite as much to upgrade as it would US-17, which still has at-grades remaining (some surrounded by businesses), even after the completion of the Dominion Blvd project. One can easily see why VA would favor using VA-168.
The big problem is that it would require a new routing in NC linking US-17 to 168. Given the cost and sensitive wetland it would go through (as well as the inevitable lawsuits), I highly doubt NCDOT would favor the 168 option.
US-17 benefits NC, VA-168 benefits VA. Catch 22.
So the "fallback", if that, is that NC ends up ponying up extra $$ for the swamp connector so VA can collect even more tolls at the Intracoastal Waterway bridge on 168. Sounds like a classic "win/FU" situation! It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, considering the improvements that have already been put into Dominion Blvd.
Quote from: HenryIf the Alligator Alley through the Everglades is any indication, they may try to build I-87 through the Great Dismal Swamp
ACoE shot down the US 460 plan because of wetlands...there's no way that they'd approve an Interstate across the Dismal Swamp.
Quote from: sparker on September 26, 2017, 04:40:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 26, 2017, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 26, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
Question: is the connection to NC 168 (and by extension VA 168) simply that -- a connecting access route -- or is it a fallback I-87 routing in case VA or the city of Chesapeake declines to improve US 17/Dominion Blvd. north to I-64? (In other words, a "shunt" of I-87 over to a route that is significantly more completed in VA.)
I suspect that VA is wanting I-87 to follow VA-168. Unlike US-17, the majority of VA-168 is almost interstate standard and wouldn't cost quite as much to upgrade as it would US-17, which still has at-grades remaining (some surrounded by businesses), even after the completion of the Dominion Blvd project. One can easily see why VA would favor using VA-168.
The big problem is that it would require a new routing in NC linking US-17 to 168. Given the cost and sensitive wetland it would go through (as well as the inevitable lawsuits), I highly doubt NCDOT would favor the 168 option.
US-17 benefits NC, VA-168 benefits VA. Catch 22.
So the "fallback", if that, is that NC ends up ponying up extra $$ for the swamp connector so VA can collect even more tolls at the Intracoastal Waterway bridge on 168. Sounds like a classic "win/FU" situation! It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, considering the improvements that have already been put into Dominion Blvd.
I don't think tolls have anything to do with it. Part of US-17 in Chesapeake recently had tolling implemented after the Dominion Blvd project wrapped up and the Dominion Blvd project was underway before I-87 was even thought of.
Upgrading VA-168 is simply cheaper and easier for VA, but they must be smoking crack if they think NCDOT could ever get approval for a new connector route versus upgrading US-17. You'd think they realize that after the US-460 fiasco...
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave. The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.
Quote from: froggie on September 26, 2017, 09:41:23 PM
Quote from: HenryIf the Alligator Alley through the Everglades is any indication, they may try to build I-87 through the Great Dismal Swamp
ACoE shot down the US 460 plan because of wetlands...there's no way that they'd approve an Interstate across the Dismal Swamp.
Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2017, 09:01:02 AM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave. The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.
That seems to clear that situation up; a VA 168 routing for I-87
would have been something of an inefficient detour. Despite its traversal of the edge of the Great Dismal, US 17 in VA
is a divided facility (at least the non-Dominion segment) that could conceivably, despite some level of difficulty, lend itself to Interstate-level upgrades.
Looking at the area it appears the connector would intersect NC 168 somewhere in the vicinity of Moyock. Seeing as the swampland just west of there was the site of the notorious
Blackwater HQ and purported commando training area, it would be intriguing -- and probably ironically humorous -- to project how Erik Prince would react to a new major road facility slicing through his bailiwick -- something tells me he and his cohorts wouldn't care much for that prospect! I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the phrase "eminent domain" became part of the conversation about the concept with that particular group of people.
Even without I-87, there's practically zero chance NCDOT would ever get approval to build that connector.
That being said, I do think it has some merit, since it could serve as a detour route for those going into Chesapeake from NC should US-17 in VA be shut down for any reason (accidents, construction, etc.). It would also give those who live along VA-168 in southern Chesapeake easy access to US-17.
As for the idea of tolls being an issue, it won't be. Both VA-168 and US-17 in VA have tolls, so drivers are gonna get fleeced either way.
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 02:51:15 AM
That seems to clear that situation up; a VA 168 routing for I-87 would have been something of an inefficient detour. Despite its traversal of the edge of the Great Dismal, US 17 in VA is a divided facility (at least the non-Dominion segment) that could conceivably, despite some level of difficulty, lend itself to Interstate-level upgrades.
All of VA US-17 between NC and I-64 is built to at least expressway standards, a limited access right-of-way with only a small number of at-grade intersections allowed. The section from VA-165 northward, in my estimation, is built to Interstate standards, with the completion of the recent Dominion Boulevard Project (http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/Dominion+Fact+Sheet.pdf).
The portion south of VA-165 has a cross-section that is befitting of Interstate standards, median over 50 feet wide and clear roadsides 25 to 30 feet wide, 10 foot paved right shoulders and 3 foot paved right shoulders. Would need to build 5 or 6 overpass bridges and an interchange at two of them. Alignment should be postable to at least 65 mph.
VA-168 south of Great Bridge has a cross-section that IMO is too narrow for Interstate standards. Major slope widening and flattening and more right-of-way would be needed. The median is too narrow at 30 feet wide. I-464 could theoretically be extended today down VA-168 to a mile from N.C., but I would oppose that for the reasons above.
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 03:23:21 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 02:51:15 AM
That seems to clear that situation up; a VA 168 routing for I-87 would have been something of an inefficient detour. Despite its traversal of the edge of the Great Dismal, US 17 in VA is a divided facility (at least the non-Dominion segment) that could conceivably, despite some level of difficulty, lend itself to Interstate-level upgrades.
All of VA US-17 between NC and I-64 is built to at least expressway standards, a limited access right-of-way with only a small number of at-grade intersections allowed. The section from VA-165 northward, in my estimation, is built to Interstate standards, with the completion of the recent Dominion Boulevard Project (http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/Dominion+Fact+Sheet.pdf).
The portion south of VA-165 has a cross-section that is befitting of Interstate standards, median over 50 feet wide and clear roadsides 25 to 30 feet wide, 10 foot paved right shoulders and 3 foot paved right shoulders. Would need to build 5 or 6 overpass bridges and an interchange at two of them. Alignment should be postable to at least 65 mph.
VA-168 south of Great Bridge has a cross-section that IMO is too narrow for Interstate standards. Major slope widening and flattening and more right-of-way would be needed. The median is too narrow at 30 feet wide. I-464 could theoretically be extended today down VA-168 to a mile from N.C., but I would oppose that for the reasons above.
So the only problem is getting VA DOT to actually pay attention to the Interstate-upgrade efforts on this corridor; it may be a "bridge too far" to expect them to prioritize it -- given their track record to date -- absent political direction urging them to do so. At this point it's probably a matter of waiting and watching.
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 03:41:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 03:23:21 PM
All of VA US-17 between NC and I-64 is built to at least expressway standards, a limited access right-of-way with only a small number of at-grade intersections allowed. The section from VA-165 northward, in my estimation, is built to Interstate standards, with the completion of the recent Dominion Boulevard Project (http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/Dominion+Fact+Sheet.pdf).
The portion south of VA-165 has a cross-section that is befitting of Interstate standards, median over 50 feet wide and clear roadsides 25 to 30 feet wide, 10 foot paved right shoulders and 3 foot paved right shoulders. Would need to build 5 or 6 overpass bridges and an interchange at two of them. Alignment should be postable to at least 65 mph.
VA-168 south of Great Bridge has a cross-section that IMO is too narrow for Interstate standards. Major slope widening and flattening and more right-of-way would be needed. The median is too narrow at 30 feet wide. I-464 could theoretically be extended today down VA-168 to a mile from N.C., but I would oppose that for the reasons above.
So the only problem is getting VA DOT to actually pay attention to the Interstate-upgrade efforts on this corridor; it may be a "bridge too far" to expect them to prioritize it -- given their track record to date -- absent political direction urging them to do so. At this point it's probably a matter of waiting and watching.
As I have said a number of times before, I think the whole "NC I-87" plan is nonsense and a boondoggle, in the first place.
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.
I would hope that Virginia would at least create a project for upgrading that part of US 17 or whatever they do so that it can at least be scored with other projects in the state. I'm assuming this hasn't happened. I would expect that the project would not score high enough to proceed to construction for many years. But at least it would be on the books and ranked. And this should satisfy NC that they are at least considering it.
This section only means that I-87 won't exist in VA. The corridor will still function for the most part as NC wants for their benefit. This is since I think trucks will use the corridor between the ports in VA and destinations in NC that are east of Rocky Mount. I doubt they would use US 58 and I-95 as an alternative. West of Rocky Mount is not so clear which corridor would be used. That's since this section in question is only 14 miles and has only two signalized intersections.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 28, 2017, 05:31:06 PM
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.
It is not a reality, it is just a line on a piece of paper, and in some PDFs.
Quote from: BrianP on September 28, 2017, 05:33:07 PM
I would hope that Virginia would at least create a project for upgrading that part of US 17 or whatever they do so that it can at least be scored with other projects in the state. I'm assuming this hasn't happened. I would expect that the project would not score high enough to proceed to construction for many years. But at least it would be on the books and ranked. And this should satisfy NC that they are at least considering it.
This section only means that I-87 won't exist in VA. The corridor will still function for the most part as NC wants for their benefit. This is since I think trucks will use the corridor between the ports in VA and destinations in NC that are east of Rocky Mount. I doubt they would use US 58 and I-95 as an alternative. West of Rocky Mount is not so clear which corridor would be used. That's since this section in question is only 14 miles and has only two signalized intersections.
East of Rocky Mount the existing US-64 and US-17 are more than adequate for many years if not decades to come. Not enough there to warrant more than a 4-lane interregional highway like what is already there.
West of Rocky Mount, US-58 and I-95 is about 25 miles shorter, distance in and of itself dismiss anything along the US-64 and US-17 corridor. Particularly for large trucks. US-58 and I-95 are not going to stand still on improvements over the next 20 years, either.
US-58 has one project under construction (Courtland Interchange east end of bypass), one project coming in four years (3.5 miles of 6-laning with access management west of Suffolk Bypass) and one project in planning (connect the Courtland and Franklin bypasses).
Quote from: BrianP on September 28, 2017, 05:33:07 PM
I would hope that Virginia would at least create a project for upgrading that part of US 17 or whatever they do so that it can at least be scored with other projects in the state. I'm assuming this hasn't happened. I would expect that the project would not score high enough to proceed to construction for many years. But at least it would be on the books and ranked. And this should satisfy NC that they are at least considering it.
If I-73 is any indication, then I would not expect I-87 to go beyond NC anytime soon, if ever. Hampton Roads supports it, but they're focused on much bigger problems at the moment, such as trying to get I-64 and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel widened. Once the major issues have been addressed and dealt with, then they'll probably turn their attention to I-87.
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 28, 2017, 05:31:06 PM
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.
It is not a reality, it is just a line on a piece of paper, and in some PDFs.
Perhaps not in VA, but it's as real as it can get in NC. I-87 shields have already been posted on the US-64 Knightdale Bypass.
Quote from: LM117 on September 28, 2017, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 28, 2017, 05:31:06 PM
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.
It is not a reality, it is just a line on a piece of paper, and in some PDFs.
Perhaps not in VA, but it's as real as it can get in NC. I-87 shields have already been posted on the US-64 Knightdale Bypass.
On a short section of pre-existing Interstate-standard highway.
For future projects, it is just a line on a piece of paper.
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 08:03:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 28, 2017, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 28, 2017, 05:31:06 PM
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.
It is not a reality, it is just a line on a piece of paper, and in some PDFs.
Perhaps not in VA, but it's as real as it can get in NC. I-87 shields have already been posted on the US-64 Knightdale Bypass.
On a short section of pre-existing Interstate-standard highway.
For future projects, it is just a line on a piece of paper.
However, it's a line on a paper within NC -- and, when it comes to Interstate additions, it's location, location, location. Also the fact that the southwesternmost 90+ miles of the corridor are already built out to freeway standards, with everything from Tarboro to Williamston built to Interstate criteria -- leaving about 48 miles of moderately substandard facility (mostly shoulder widths). If I had to venture a guess based on previous NC history with projects of this sort, they'll do what they did with 73/74 -- post Interstate shields on the conforming portion and future corridor signs on the part that doesn't yet meet spec -- and that signage will happen within 5 years at the outside. This state tends to follow through with such plans (when & if there's funding, of course); the presence of extant usable facilities just serves to accelerate things!
QuoteLooking at the area it appears the connector would intersect NC 168 somewhere in the vicinity of Moyock.
North of there. Per the maps, it would intersect NC 168 just north of the state line.
The only way I can see such a connector becoming a reality is if it's built directly on top of Old Swamp Rd, and that's definitely not happening. Might as well forget about it.
Does NCDOT still build new expressways with narrow shoulders whenever possible?
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 29, 2017, 04:06:26 PM
Does NCDOT still build new expressways with narrow shoulders whenever possible?
All North Carolina highways have shoulders, but not all are fully paved. So if you are referring "narrow shoulders" as paved area then yes, but people can still pull over onto the shoulder, it will either just be dirt or grass instead. The state manages the 2nd largest network in the country, not surprising they cut a few corners.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 29, 2017, 04:47:40 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 29, 2017, 04:06:26 PM
Does NCDOT still build new expressways with narrow shoulders whenever possible?
All North Carolina highways have shoulders, but not all are fully paved. So if you are referring "narrow shoulders" as paved area then yes, but people can still pull over onto the shoulder, it will either just be dirt or grass instead. The state manages the 2nd largest network in the country, not surprising they cut a few corners.
True, the shoulder is defined as the graded area on the roadside that slopes at or near the same slope as the roadway, up to about 12 wide.
Whether the shoulder is paved or stabilized, and the width of that area, is a separate design matter. A shoulder can be stabilized with 3 or 4 inch depth of compacted aggregate base material, and while being unpaved can still provide a strong support for a vehicle that stops on it, and it won't get muddy and soft from a heavy rain.
How often are N.C. unpaved shoulders stabilized in the above manner?
Quote from: Beltway on September 29, 2017, 04:59:28 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on September 29, 2017, 04:47:40 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 29, 2017, 04:06:26 PM
Does NCDOT still build new expressways with narrow shoulders whenever possible?
All North Carolina highways have shoulders, but not all are fully paved. So if you are referring "narrow shoulders" as paved area then yes, but people can still pull over onto the shoulder, it will either just be dirt or grass instead. The state manages the 2nd largest network in the country, not surprising they cut a few corners.
True, the shoulder is defined as the graded area on the roadside that slopes at or near the same slope as the roadway, up to about 12 wide.
Whether the shoulder is paved or stabilized, and the width of that area, is a separate design matter. A shoulder can be stabilized with 3 or 4 inch depth of compacted aggregate base material, and while being unpaved can still provide a strong support for a vehicle that stops on it, and it won't get muddy and soft from a heavy rain.
How often are N.C. unpaved shoulders stabilized in the above manner?
That type of shoulder was employed on the US 78 freeway in Mississippi (at least west of Tupelo); replacement of it with paved shoulders was the principal hold-up (New Albany notwithstanding!) to achievement of Interstate standards during the I-22 conversion process. I had occasion to pull over onto those shoulders back around 1999; even after a rain they seemed to be quite stable -- it never felt like I was driving into a mud patch or anything that would be difficult to drive out of.
Quote from: sparker on September 29, 2017, 06:37:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 29, 2017, 04:59:28 PM
True, the shoulder is defined as the graded area on the roadside that slopes at or near the same slope as the roadway, up to about 12 wide.
Whether the shoulder is paved or stabilized, and the width of that area, is a separate design matter. A shoulder can be stabilized with 3 or 4 inch depth of compacted aggregate base material, and while being unpaved can still provide a strong support for a vehicle that stops on it, and it won't get muddy and soft from a heavy rain.
How often are N.C. unpaved shoulders stabilized in the above manner?
That type of shoulder was employed on the US 78 freeway in Mississippi (at least west of Tupelo); replacement of it with paved shoulders was the principal hold-up (New Albany notwithstanding!) to achievement of Interstate standards during the I-22 conversion process. I had occasion to pull over onto those shoulders back around 1999; even after a rain they seemed to be quite stable -- it never felt like I was driving into a mud patch or anything that would be difficult to drive out of.
Virginia makes widespread use of stabilized shoulders on 4-lane interregional highways. After five years or so after installation, enough grass grows in them that the aggregate base material is not as obvious. They are quite solid and firm even for a truck to stop on. They also lend themselves to being paved with plant mix asphalt in a routine roadway resurfacing project, so it is not necessary to program a TIP/SYP project in order to convert it to a paved shoulder. Just spread an inch or so more of aggregate base on the shoulder, grade it with a motorgrader, and pave it with asphalt. On the 4-lane interregional highways, in more and more places these shoulders are being paved in this manner, usually 10 years or more after the original installation.
http://www.reflector.com/News/2017/10/03/Officials-consider-bond-for-quicker-I-87.html
QuoteELIZABETH CITY – North Carolinians agreed to borrow $2 billion last year to support higher education and infrastructure. Should they borrow a similar amount to more quickly build Interstate 87 and other important roads?
Some local officials say yes.
For more than a year, Interstate 87 has been a burning issue for elected officials in Pasquotank and surrounding counties. Creating that road from Raleigh to the Virginia state line would cost more than $1.3 billion, based on early estimates, and it could take decades to develop. Just widening U.S. Highway 17 to interstate standards from northern Pasquotank through Camden may cost almost $187 million, and it's not slated to start before 2027, according to the state's 2018-2027 transportation plan.
Angela Welsh, of the Albemarle Rural Planning Organization, helps county officials review and prioritize road projects. As she reported a year ago, I-87 projects score poorly under the state's "Strategic Mobility Formula" that helps decide road funding.
The argument from Welsh and others is that those projects are more than the sum of their parts. An interchange here and an overpass there might not seem to do much in small communities where congestion isn't a problem. Combine them all to make an interstate, however, and you can offer businesses a high-speed, non-stop corridor to move their goods.
That's part of why ARPO member and Pasquotank Commissioner Lloyd Griffin said he supported special funding to support I-87 development. The state's road funding formula continues to prioritize dollars towards congestion, meaning rural areas are hard-pressed to beat urban ones for state dollars. The road funding formula does commit certain amounts to each part of the state, but Griffin noted the northeast also has to spend major dollars maintaining ferries.
Elizabeth City City Manager Rich Olson similarly said Friday the state should provide funding outside of the road funding formula. Looking at I-87 projects collectively shows their value, he argued, also noting the state is working on an economic analysis that should reaffirm that.
Wayne Harris, director of the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Economic Development Commission, also agreed with additional funding to accelerate I-87 construction.
"The sooner it happens, the faster we'll see that economic development boost," Harris said.
He also added that the "path of the least resistance" for funding I-87 would be issuing bonds.
North Carolina has $2.25 billion in transportation debt capacity over the next five years, according to the latest annual "Debt Affordability Study" from the state treasurer. In reaching that number, the study notes that North Carolina has a goal of borrowing no more than 6 percent of available transportation revenues. Transportation debt is considered separately from general fund debt — which now includes the $2 billion "Connect NC" bonds that voters approved in spring 2016 for supporting higher education and infrastructure.
Rep. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan, said he's open to a transportation bond. I-87 is critical to tapping into the economic growth in Tidewater Virginia, he said.
"North of us is exploding," Steinburg said. "I think we need to move as quickly as prudently possible" in developing I-87, he said.
However, Steinburg noted, there would be politics to navigate in proposing another bond.
Were the General Assembly to consider a $2 billion road bond, other lawmakers would, understandably, expect funding for high-priority projects in their areas as well, he explained.
It's also unlikely they'd support devoting all $1.35 billion needed to develop all of I-87. That would commit more than half the state's five-year transportation debt capacity to just one project.
That means that even a major bond issue likely wouldn't fund the whole road. Agreeing with Pasquotank and Camden officials, Steinburg said he'd support prioritizing interstate development from Elizabeth City to Virginia. That would make Pasquotank and Camden's industrial parks more attractive, he noted.
Rep. Howard Hunter III, D-Hertford, also said he'd support issuing transportation bonds for I-87, as well as special appropriations, if needed.
"I totally agree that this project should be done faster," Hunter said, adding he's been fighting for better infrastructure since taking office.
"I've found out it's not Republican versus Democrat – it's urban versus rural," he said.
Sen. Bill Cook, R-Beaufort, declined to state in an email whether he'd support special appropriations or a bond issue for I-87. He noted, however, that the state has increased transportation funding by $320 million over the next two years in the State Transportation Improvement Plan, noting plans to upgrade U.S. 17 north of Elizabeth City in 2027.
Sen. Erica Smith-Ingram, D-Northampton, couldn't be reached for comment Friday.
Though local lawmakers may be receptive to special funding for I-87, legislative leaders may be less so. In an email, a spokeswoman for Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said he supports the reforms lawmakers made to how roads are funded and the additional $320 million put into the STIP. Lawmakers have worked to accelerate road funding, she noted.
She also wrote "Sen. Berger supports continuing this approach ... without incurring additional debt and without undermining the fair and transparent process North Carolina now has in place."
From the article:
Quote"I-87 projects score poorly under the state's "Strategic Mobility Formula" that helps decide road funding."
Then perhaps I-87 projects aren't the proper place to spend transportation dollars...
I don't see any bond happening. The General Assembly wouldn't even allow highway funding in the Connect NC bonds that former governor Pat McCrory wanted. That's one of the very few things he attempted to do right.
Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2017, 11:11:26 AM
From the article:
Quote"I-87 projects score poorly under the state's "Strategic Mobility Formula" that helps decide road funding."
Then perhaps I-87 projects aren't the proper place to spend transportation dollars...
They aren't. East of Rocky Mount, the existing 4-lane interregional highways US-64 and US-17 will be more than adequate for the corridor for at least 20 years into the future.
Quote from: Beltway on October 03, 2017, 01:11:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2017, 11:11:26 AM
From the article:
Quote"I-87 projects score poorly under the state's "Strategic Mobility Formula" that helps decide road funding."
Then perhaps I-87 projects aren't the proper place to spend transportation dollars...
They aren't. East of Rocky Mount, the existing 4-lane interregional highways US-64 and US-17 will be more than adequate for the corridor for at least 20 years into the future.
It seems to be as much a case of intrastate politicking (pitting regions against one another for attention in this realm) as anything that has resulted in not one but
three Interstate corridors (42,587,87) commissioned from Raleigh toward the coast. Since the completion of I-40 down to Wilmington over 25 years ago, most NC transportation interests have concentrated in the Research Triangle and the Piedmont (including, for better or worse, the I-73/74 developmental efforts). Pretty much anything east of US 1 was, in relative terms, afforded short shrift. Now that other activities (the aforementioned 73/74 corridor, the I-26 extension, the I-485 beltway, etc.) are no longer new & intriguing and inviting most of the attention, coastal Carolina saw an opening and grabbed it. While the US 70 corridor definitely needed attention given regional growth -- and I-42 was the chosen vehicle for such -- the other two corridors were already serviceable facilities. But it's politics -- which has overtaken actual determined need as the principal driving factor behind many, if not most, of the last several Interstate corridors to be commissioned (in NC and elsewhere) -- that is likely in play here, as it has been in other locales (TX being another). It no longer becomes a matter of demonstrated
need but more often basic
want, exacerbated by opportunity -- i.e., the existence of a facility perceived as having greater potential value than its current usage may suggest, or even the presence of legislation (principally the HPC compendium) singling out certain routes or corridors for future attention and potential funding.
In the instance of I-87, both factors are in play -- the facility, particularly along US 64, is either at or near Interstate standards already, while the remainder along US 17 has sporadic segments of usable roadway as well. Add the presence, for the last 26 years, of one of the original ISTEA-based high-priority corridors (#13). The final catalyst is locally-originated political action stemming from either regional self-interest, simple envy, or both. And,
voila', we've got I-87 (and its offspring I-587). This is currently how corridors are commissioned -- and occasionally actually constructed; more a matter of someone or something with clout wanting a "piece of the action" rather than any level of deference to the status quo. Interstate additions are no longer a matter of careful consideration prompted by demonstrated need; they're a way to attract attention to regions and locales whose denizens perceive that this is a way to advance their particular interests.
One has merely to go back to the 1973 changes in how federal transportation funding was dispersed to see the inception of the present situation -- Interstates were no longer a "top-down" nationally-vetted entity but from that point on reflecting a "bottom-up" approach dependent upon state/local efforts -- a recipe for localized unilateral activity toward ends with perceived local or regional benefit. It seems that the authors of the '73 changes wished to eliminate the possibility of a repeat of the 1968 "omnibus" 1500-mile national Interstate expansion legislation by shifting the impetus away from national consideration to localized will. And that is precisely what happened until the 1991 ISTEA act -- but that legislation, and its periodic successors, was simply a series of unfunded mandates; a "wish list", so to speak, of individual projects; it was left up to the regions affected by the listed corridors to follow through on both political and physical efforts to actually build out those corridors -- if and only if funding could be secured. New Interstates commissioned over the last quarter century have, for the most part, had their origins within the various corridors that are periodically added to the HPC aggregate.
As the "system" presently stands, planning efforts based on actual need don't stand a chance of seeing the light of day whereas politically-motivated activities in this realm have become the
de facto standard -- and where the status quo, or effective "no build" selection, is swamped by the influence of political will and thus no longer a viable option. Thus, projects such as I-87 in NC, I-14 in TX, and others of its ilk will continue to proliferate. Barring a full-blown depression -- or if or when a reiterated modern version of the '68 national additions is forthcoming (unlikely!), this
is the status quo -- for better or worse!
As far as future interstates in eastern NC are concerned, NCDOT seems to be giving I-42 and I-795 top priority, as they should.
Quote from: sparker on October 05, 2017, 06:27:00 PM
<< snips, no disagreement with the rest >>
Quote from: sparker on October 05, 2017, 06:27:00 PM
In the instance of I-87, both factors are in play -- the facility, particularly along US 64, is either at or near Interstate standards already, while the remainder along US 17 has sporadic segments of usable roadway as well. Add the presence, for the last 26 years, of one of the original ISTEA-based high-priority corridors (#13). The final catalyst is locally-originated political action stemming from either regional self-interest, simple envy, or both. And, voila', we've got I-87 (and its offspring I-587). This is currently how corridors are commissioned -- and occasionally actually constructed; more a matter of someone or something with clout wanting a "piece of the action" rather than any level of deference to the status quo. Interstate additions are no longer a matter of careful consideration prompted by demonstrated need; they're a way to attract attention to regions and locales whose denizens perceive that this is a way to advance their particular interests.
But about 70 miles of the existing routes is -not- Interstate-standard. Interstate new construction is very expensive today, and there just isn't a need for that kind of construction here.
I agree with the gist of what you have been saying, that the current process for building new Interstate highways is basically bogus and corrupt.
You also said that the 1968 process of adding 1,500 miles of new Interstate routes was done the way it should be done, with a national distribution process of adding in as many states as possible and in a way that is generally fair overall; and that something like this should be done about every 10 years or so. Of course much of that mileage was in auxiliary routes (3 digit).
Quote from: Beltway on October 05, 2017, 09:33:57 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 05, 2017, 06:27:00 PM
<< snips, no disagreement with the rest >>
Quote from: sparker on October 05, 2017, 06:27:00 PM
In the instance of I-87, both factors are in play -- the facility, particularly along US 64, is either at or near Interstate standards already, while the remainder along US 17 has sporadic segments of usable roadway as well. Add the presence, for the last 26 years, of one of the original ISTEA-based high-priority corridors (#13). The final catalyst is locally-originated political action stemming from either regional self-interest, simple envy, or both. And, voila', we've got I-87 (and its offspring I-587). This is currently how corridors are commissioned -- and occasionally actually constructed; more a matter of someone or something with clout wanting a "piece of the action" rather than any level of deference to the status quo. Interstate additions are no longer a matter of careful consideration prompted by demonstrated need; they're a way to attract attention to regions and locales whose denizens perceive that this is a way to advance their particular interests.
But about 70 miles of the existing routes is -not- Interstate-standard. Interstate new construction is very expensive today, and there just isn't a need for that kind of construction here.
I agree with the gist of what you have been saying, that the current process for building new Interstate highways is basically bogus and corrupt.
You also said that the 1968 process of adding 1,500 miles of new Interstate routes was done the way it should be done, with a national distribution process of adding in as many states as possible and in a way that is generally fair overall; and that something like this should be done about every 10 years or so. Of course much of that mileage was in auxiliary routes (3 digit).
I agree that of all the proposed I-87 corridor, only the full-freeway segments of both US 64 and US 17 will be relatively simple to upgrade; the remainder, all of which lie along US 17,
will be difficult and/or costly to bring up to Interstate standards (the Elizabeth City bypass to the contrary), largely due to the wetlands the corridor traverses. It is obvious that the impetus for the corridor (HPC #13, dating from 1991) came primarily from NC, which obviously wished to reap whatever benefits could be accrued from a Hampton Roads connection to the southwest -- although a Virginia-bound facility along US 58 would have been a much more efficient routing to both southward I-95
and I-85. Interestingly, US 64 had been completed as a freeway, albeit to sub-Interstate standards, out as far as Tarboro by 1991; once HPC #13 was designated with that year's ISTEA legislation, the remainder out to US 17 was constructed to full Interstate standards, complete with the compliant inner & outer shoulders missing from the original westerly segment. However, one thing is perplexing just by its absence: why NC didn't request an Interstate designation along with so many other corridors back when the NHS (1995) legislation was in process -- especially since at least
someone with authority within NCDOT calculated that the corridor would eventually be considered for Interstate status; hence the compliant eastern US 64 freeway segment. Possibly it was thought that since they got the 73/74 composite corridor that year, they weren't about to press their luck with yet another corridor designation.
Of the approximately 1500 miles added with the 1968 legislation, about 1160 were 2di trunk routes: new corridors, extensions, and reroutings; this included the initial I-40 extension between I-85 and I-95 (the Wilmington section came a couple of decades later). Of the remaining 340 miles, a little under 200 miles were Interstate spurs, mostly rural in nature, from trunk routes into cities initially bypassed/avoided by the 1957 system iteration, including I-380 in Iowa, I-185 down to Columbus, GA, I-565 over to Huntsville, AL, and I-164 into Evansville, IN, with the last 140-odd miles actually apportioned to urban/suburban bypasses or loops. The single longest route added was the I-75 extension from the Tampa area down to Miami (approximately 250 miles); curiously, 3 of the new designations: I-88 in NY, I-27 in TX, and what eventually (1974) became I-43 in WI were each between 120 and 125 miles long. Even though the legislation had been Congressionally pared down from 4500 to 1500 miles (courtesy of continued Vietnam War expenditures), great pains were taken to distribute new mileage around the nation as needed -- and as dictated by changing population distribution as per the 1965 census estimates. Nevertheless, a few politically-motivated routings
were included in the final draft -- the original I-72 was on occasion described as Everett Dirksen's retirement present to his hometown of Decatur, IL! But overall the process was relatively clean and straightforward, unlike the machinations that seem to surround the Interstate-addition process today.
Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2017, 05:31:18 AM
I agree that of all the proposed I-87 corridor, only the full-freeway segments of both US 64 and US 17 will be relatively simple to upgrade; the remainder, all of which lie along US 17, will be difficult and/or costly to bring up to Interstate standards (the Elizabeth City bypass to the contrary), largely due to the wetlands the corridor traverses. It is obvious that the impetus for the corridor (HPC #13, dating from 1991) came primarily from NC, which obviously wished to reap whatever benefits could be accrued from a Hampton Roads connection to the southwest -- although a Virginia-bound facility along US 58 would have been a much more efficient routing to both southward I-95 and I-85. Interestingly, US 64 had been completed as a freeway, albeit to sub-Interstate standards, out as far as Tarboro by 1991; once HPC #13 was designated with that year's ISTEA legislation, the remainder out to US 17 was constructed to full Interstate standards, complete with the compliant inner & outer shoulders missing from the original westerly segment. However, one thing is perplexing just by its absence: why NC didn't request an Interstate designation along with so many other corridors back when the NHS (1995) legislation was in process -- especially since at least someone with authority within NCDOT calculated that the corridor would eventually be considered for Interstate status; hence the compliant eastern US 64 freeway segment. Possibly it was thought that since they got the 73/74 composite corridor that year, they weren't about to press their luck with yet another corridor designation.
Of the approximately 1500 miles added with the 1968 legislation, about 1160 were 2di trunk routes: new corridors, extensions, and reroutings; this included the initial I-40 extension between I-85 and I-95 (the Wilmington section came a couple of decades later). Of the remaining 340 miles, a little under 200 miles were Interstate spurs, mostly rural in nature, from trunk routes into cities initially bypassed/avoided by the 1957 system iteration, including I-380 in Iowa, I-185 down to Columbus, GA, I-565 over to Huntsville, AL, and I-164 into Evansville, IN, with the last 140-odd miles actually apportioned to urban/suburban bypasses or loops. The single longest route added was the I-75 extension from the Tampa area down to Miami (approximately 250 miles); curiously, 3 of the new designations: I-88 in NY, I-27 in TX, and what eventually (1974) became I-43 in WI were each between 120 and 125 miles long. Even though the legislation had been Congressionally pared down from 4500 to 1500 miles (courtesy of continued Vietnam War expenditures), great pains were taken to distribute new mileage around the nation as needed -- and as dictated by changing population distribution as per the 1965 census estimates. Nevertheless, a few politically-motivated routings were included in the final draft -- the original I-72 was on occasion described as Everett Dirksen's retirement present to his hometown of Decatur, IL! But overall the process was relatively clean and straightforward, unlike the machinations that seem to surround the Interstate-addition process today.
I wonder if there is a list of all the auxiliary routes in the 1968 additions? While relatively short in mileage, they often were expensive and have high positive impacts.
These are the ones in Virginia --
I-195 Beltline Expressway, 3.5 miles
I-664, northern 9.2 miles including bridge-tunnel
I-595 National Airport Connector, 1.1 miles, funding used to build lower design expressway grade highway on US-1
Maryland, I am pretty sure of these --
I-195 to BWI Airport
I-795 Northwest Expressway, 6.0 mile portion from I-695 to west of Owings Mills Blvd.
Not aware of a list of the additions that were approved (only that then-Secretary Boyd announced them on December 13, 1968), but Kurumi has a list of the submitted requests (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html).
I do know of at least one approved 1968 addition that is not on Kurumi's request list: I-394 MN.
Quote from: froggie on October 06, 2017, 07:42:07 AM
Not aware of a list of the additions that were approved (only that then-Secretary Boyd announced them on December 13, 1968), but Kurumi has a list of the submitted requests (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html).
I do know of at least one approved 1968 addition that is not on Kurumi's request list: I-394 MN.
I can see a number that weren't approved.
I was trying to think of any that were in PA or NJ. The only one that I can think of is I-895, which was never built.
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2017, 01:19:19 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 06, 2017, 07:42:07 AM
Not aware of a list of the additions that were approved (only that then-Secretary Boyd announced them on December 13, 1968), but Kurumi has a list of the submitted requests (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html).
I do know of at least one approved 1968 addition that is not on Kurumi's request list: I-394 MN.
I can see a number that weren't approved.
I was trying to think of any that were in PA or NJ. The only one that I can think of is I-895, which was never built.
Out here on the West Coast, the major 3di to be approved in '68 was I-105 in L.A. Curiously, the original I-15 extension plans essentially followed US 395 from Colton through Riverside and then down to San Diego. The shift to the former CA 31 and 71 alignments via Ontario and Corona didn't happen until early 1971, at which time the designation of I-15E was requested for the remainder of original I-15 from Colton to Devore; that segment was posted as such at the end of 1972. The I-15E southern extension to the (then) eastern CA 60/US 395 junction in Moreno Valley was posted by spring 1973, with "temporary" signage along the US 395 expressway south of there to Perris (and sporadically beyond that down to Temecula). The remainder of US 395 was also sporadically signed as "Temporary I-15"; much of that route remained rural 2-lane highway at that time. The I-215 designation didn't replace 15E until 1982 after suffixed routes fell out of favor.
The only other 1968 west coast activity was the rerouting of I-82 in Washington & Oregon away from a more or less direct line between Prosser, WA and Hinkle, OR and to an alignment that would more directly serve the "Tri-City" metro area (Richland/Kennewick/Pasco); besides adding some 24 miles to I-82, which skirted the southwest corner of the metro complex, the I-182 spur into Pasco was also established. The reroute also enabled the alignment to make use of the existing Columbia River bridge at Umatilla, which became the eastbound half of the entire 4-lane set of bridges.
Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2017, 09:01:02 AM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave. The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.
According to today's article, that connector is indeed a possible routing for I-87.
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/08/NCDOT-mulls-I-87-route-to-Currituck.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/08/NCDOT-mulls-I-87-route-to-Currituck.html)
QuoteCAMDEN – Should the proposed new Interstate 87 be aligned with U.S. Highway 17 as it travels through Camden County into Chesapeake, Virginia, or should it veer northeastward through northern Currituck before heading into Chesapeake?
That was a topic of discussion for Camden commissioners during a meeting with a N.C. Department of Transportation official last week.
Commissioners met with Shane York, a feasibility studies engineer with NCDOT, about the proposed new interstate highway that, should it be funded, would link Raleigh and Norfolk, Virginia, by traveling through Rocky Mount, Williamston, Edenton, Hertford and Elizabeth City.
York advised Camden officials that late last year, Currituck County officials contacted NCDOT about the prospect of routing I-87 through northern Currituck into Virginia instead along the current path of U.S. 17 into Virginia.
"We would like you to give us a cost estimate for that, too, as a possible alternate," York said, quoting Currituck officials.
York said Currituck's request had "some political pull." He said it was his understanding that Virginia's transportation secretary has also expressed interest in routing I-87 through northern Currituck, instead of following following the current path of U.S. 17. As a result, an alternate route for I-87, featuring an east-west connector through northern Currituck, is part of the drawings for the proposed highway.
Camden interim Manager Stephanie Humphries made clear the county supports the connector into northern Currituck, provided there's no detrimental effect to planning and development in Camden. County officials want assurances from NCDOT that an I-87 through Camden would feature easy access to both the Dismal Swamp Canal Welcome Center and the Dismal Swamp State Park, both key assets for Camden. They also want assurances that there won't be any harm to commercial and industrial sites or proposed residential development sites in northern Camden.
As proposed, the east-west connector would begin east of U.S. 17, just above the welcome center and the state park in northern Camden. It would extend just below the state line into northern Currituck, site of that county's proposed Moyock Mega-Site commercial and residential project.
From there, the connector would travel slightly northeast into Virginia, linking with Virginia Highway 168 through a proposed interchange just north of the Border Station convenience store. Virginia 168 is a short segment of stop-and-go roadway before it becomes the tolled Chesapeake Expressway and a connector to Interstates 64 and 464.
Camden Economic Development Director Charlie Bauman indicated he was a little concerned about the proposed east-west connector through Currituck, given that the whole point of I-87 is to speed traffic between Norfolk and Raleigh.
Bauman said he believes having I-87 aligned with both U.S. 17 and Dominion Boulevard on through to I-64 and I-464 is "the shortest distance between two points."
"That's why we're a little confused about wanting to route traffic through a connector into Virginia and dumping it into the Chesapeake Expressway," he said.
Bauman said he believes traffic also would want to travel the shortest route.
"Consumer traffic is really going to, we think, travel that route, instead of going round the elbow" to get to I-64 and I-464, he told York.
Camden Board of Commissioners Chairman Clayton Riggs said he, too, believes I-87 needs to feature the most direct route to the Port of Virginia.
"It makes a lot more sense to go straight up 17 than it does to come through the connector road to go to the port," he said.
Camden Commissioner Garry Meiggs, however, said he believes the closest route depends on which port a trucker is driving toward because Hampton Roads has multiple ports.
Asked last month whether the city of Chesapeake has a position on which route I-87 should go, spokeswoman Karen Meyers said in an email that Chesapeake hasn't weighed in on a specific location yet. Nonetheless, the city believes I-87 should generally follow U.S. 17 and Dominion Boulevard to I-64 and I-464, she said.
Virginia Transportation Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick said in an email Friday that Virginia Department of Transportation have discussed the proposed I-87 with their counterparts in North Carolina.
"We have also discussed the corridor with NCDOT leadership about a year ago," Kilpatrick said. "They made us aware of this east-west connector option and the connection to Virginia Route 168 near the state line."
Asked if he had any preference about the route for I-87, he indicated VDOT isn't close to any decision yet.
"We have not yet engaged the interested parties regarding potential alignments. We are just beginning the study process," he said.
Much of York's meeting with Camden officials centered on how I-87 would affect access to both the Dismal Swamp Canal Welcome Center and the Dismal Swamp State Park. Current plans for I-87 call for its construction just east of U.S. 17 in the area of the welcome center and the park.
Nortbound I-87 traffic would get to the welcome center and the park by exiting at an interchange at McPherson Road. Soundbound I-87 traffic would exit onto the current U.S. 17 alignment to get to the welcome center and the park.
Welcome Center Director Donna Stewart, who participated in the meeting, said the center would like to see an interchange as easy as possible for motorists to navigate. She has good reason for wanting easy access.
Welcome center data show slightly more than 26,400 people sought information or directions at the center in 2016. Traffic counts also show nearly 673,600 people visited the site in 2016. That number is determined from a formula that counts two to three people in each visiting vehicle.
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2017, 08:56:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2017, 09:01:02 AM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave. The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.
According to today's article, that connector is indeed a possible routing for I-87.
Wow! This sure looks like everyone in the NE corner of NC is trying to get a slice of Interstate pie! From the text of the discussion, it looks like the eastern option entering VA along (MSR) 168 would likely depart NB from somewhere along the existing Elizabeth City bypass and head east, largely following NC 34 up to 168. As a large-scale housing/commercial Moyock-based development was cited in the article, it's likely someone is projecting a rerouted I-87 as a dual-directional access route for this new undertaking -- providing both a freeway corridor north into the Hampton Roads area as well as southwest into the rest of NC. From the discussion, it looks as if the locals have yet to make up their minds about what's best for their area -- and VA DOT is still in the process of scratching their heads about I-87 (but no one seems to know if it will even be prioritized regardless of alignment). And the local tourist industry is also weighing in regarding access to their attractions -- this whole thing looks like a multi-ring circus. But then nothing about any facility projected to cross this particular state line has ever been straightforward. It just may be that NCDOT is hedging their bets -- and using the locals as a vehicle to do so -- about VA's willingness to follow through on a freeway alignment along US 17 -- choosing to go where there's already a more complete facility across the state line. I'll be willing to bet that this thing drags on for at least several years before a cross-border alignment is selected -- sending the prospects for a completed corridor way, way off into the future.
Quote from: sparker on October 08, 2017, 06:39:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2017, 08:56:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2017, 09:01:02 AM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave. The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.
According to today's article, that connector is indeed a possible routing for I-87.
Wow! This sure looks like everyone in the NE corner of NC is trying to get a slice of Interstate pie! From the text of the discussion, it looks like the eastern option entering VA along (MSR) 168 would likely depart NB from somewhere along the existing Elizabeth City bypass and head east, largely following NC 34 up to 168. As a large-scale housing/commercial Moyock-based development was cited in the article, it's likely someone is projecting a rerouted I-87 as a dual-directional access route for this new undertaking -- providing both a freeway corridor north into the Hampton Roads area as well as southwest into the rest of NC. From the discussion, it looks as if the locals have yet to make up their minds about what's best for their area -- and VA DOT is still in the process of scratching their heads about I-87 (but no one seems to know if it will even be prioritized regardless of alignment). And the local tourist industry is also weighing in regarding access to their attractions -- this whole thing looks like a multi-ring circus. But then nothing about any facility projected to cross this particular state line has ever been straightforward. It just may be that NCDOT is hedging their bets -- and using the locals as a vehicle to do so -- about VA's willingness to follow through on a freeway alignment along US 17 -- choosing to go where there's already a more complete facility across the state line. I'll be willing to bet that this thing drags on for at least several years before a cross-border alignment is selected -- sending the prospects for a completed corridor way, way off into the future.
They could actually make a serious effort to engage VDOT on this, but looks like they haven't, and that is a poor way to plan an inter-state corridor.
I disagree that VA-168 is "a more complete facility" than US-17, as the portion last built in 2001 (that south of the Great Bridge Bypass) has a cross-section that is substandard for an Interstate highway, the median is too narrow and the roadsides are too narrow; they would need more right-of-way along the whole length and widened roadsides, and the last mile has at-grade intersections; granted that VA-168 northward to I-64 is a full freeway except for that last mile. The section of VA US-17 that has at-grade intersections is built to Interstate standards in alignment and cross-section, and has a limited access right-of-way; lacking is about 6 overpass bridges and 2 diamond interchanges.
These two highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and that will militate against the city and the state wanting to spend more money on highways that have already gotten a lot of money in the last 20 years.
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2017, 08:18:17 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 08, 2017, 06:39:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2017, 08:56:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2017, 09:01:02 AM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave. The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.
According to today's article, that connector is indeed a possible routing for I-87.
Wow! This sure looks like everyone in the NE corner of NC is trying to get a slice of Interstate pie! From the text of the discussion, it looks like the eastern option entering VA along (MSR) 168 would likely depart NB from somewhere along the existing Elizabeth City bypass and head east, largely following NC 34 up to 168. As a large-scale housing/commercial Moyock-based development was cited in the article, it's likely someone is projecting a rerouted I-87 as a dual-directional access route for this new undertaking -- providing both a freeway corridor north into the Hampton Roads area as well as southwest into the rest of NC. From the discussion, it looks as if the locals have yet to make up their minds about what's best for their area -- and VA DOT is still in the process of scratching their heads about I-87 (but no one seems to know if it will even be prioritized regardless of alignment). And the local tourist industry is also weighing in regarding access to their attractions -- this whole thing looks like a multi-ring circus. But then nothing about any facility projected to cross this particular state line has ever been straightforward. It just may be that NCDOT is hedging their bets -- and using the locals as a vehicle to do so -- about VA's willingness to follow through on a freeway alignment along US 17 -- choosing to go where there's already a more complete facility across the state line. I'll be willing to bet that this thing drags on for at least several years before a cross-border alignment is selected -- sending the prospects for a completed corridor way, way off into the future.
They could actually make a serious effort to engage VDOT on this, but looks like they haven't, and that is a poor way to plan an inter-state corridor.
I disagree that VA-168 is "a more complete facility" than US-17, as the portion last built in 2001 (that south of the Great Bridge Bypass) has a cross-section that is substandard for an Interstate highway, the median is too narrow and the roadsides are too narrow; they would need more right-of-way along the whole length and widened roadsides, and the last mile has at-grade intersections; granted that VA-168 northward to I-64 is a full freeway except for that last mile. The section of VA US-17 that has at-grade intersections is built to Interstate standards in alignment and cross-section, and has a limited access right-of-way; lacking is about 6 overpass bridges and 2 diamond interchanges.
These two highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and that will militate against the city and the state wanting to spend more money on highways that have already gotten a lot of money in the last 20 years.
I'm in full agreement with planning efforts that place I-87 (still think it's a dumbass number for this corridor!) on US 17 all the way through Chesapeake to I-64; but until the parties involved in VA sign on to that concept, it's easy to see, given VA's track record to date, how NC folks might be inclined to devise as many alternate plans as feasible -- which in this instance is practically limited to the 17 and 168 corridors; new-terrain routes through the heart of the Great Dismal are obviously a non-starter. All that can be done at this time is to hope the powers that be in VA and the city of Chesapeake step back and look at what they've already done on Dominion Blvd. to enhance that route -- and elect to simply extend that effort down US 17 to the state line.
Quote from: sparker on October 09, 2017, 04:08:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2017, 08:18:17 PM
These two highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and that will militate against the city and the state wanting to spend more money on highways that have already gotten a lot of money in the last 20 years.
I'm in full agreement with planning efforts that place I-87 (still think it's a dumbass number for this corridor!) on US 17 all the way through Chesapeake to I-64; but until the parties involved in VA sign on to that concept, it's easy to see, given VA's track record to date, how NC folks might be inclined to devise as many alternate plans as feasible -- which in this instance is practically limited to the 17 and 168 corridors; new-terrain routes through the heart of the Great Dismal are obviously a non-starter. All that can be done at this time is to hope the powers that be in VA and the city of Chesapeake step back and look at what they've already done on Dominion Blvd. to enhance that route -- and elect to simply extend that effort down US 17 to the state line.
But why? The Dominion Boulevard Project cost $430 million. Like I said from the city and state perspective those highways are adequate for the foreseeable future. THSDOT has their own agenda.
Quote from: sparkerFrom the text of the discussion, it looks like the eastern option entering VA along (MSR) 168 would likely depart NB from somewhere along the existing Elizabeth City bypass and head east, largely following NC 34 up to 168.
None of the concepts I've seen/read include this routing. The concept corridor that has been mapped out, and is referred to in the article, leaves US 17 near the Welcome Center and meets 168 just north of the state line.
Quote from: BeltwayThe section of VA US-17 that has at-grade intersections is built to Interstate standards in alignment and cross-section, and has a limited access right-of-way; lacking is about 6 overpass bridges and 2 diamond interchanges.
Not fully. The section they did about a decade ago, from the state line up to past BUSINESS 17, has 8ft outside shoulders instead of the standard 10ft.
Quote from: froggie on October 09, 2017, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: BeltwayThe section of VA US-17 that has at-grade intersections is built to Interstate standards in alignment and cross-section, and has a limited access right-of-way; lacking is about 6 overpass bridges and 2 diamond interchanges.
Not fully. The section they did about a decade ago, from the state line up to past BUSINESS 17, has 8ft outside shoulders instead of the standard 10ft.
Fer sure? Looks like 10 feet wide. If not there is ample space to widen it by 2 feet, could even be done in a maintenance resurfacing project like has been done in many other places.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/US17-Chesapeake-9.jpg
BTW, compare that to the narrow roadsides and narrow R/W on the Chesapeake Expressway.
From the Indian Creek Road overpass --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA168_ICR_N.jpg
When they began construction of it around the time I left Norfolk the first time, I recall articles and such talking about the design, and how it was to be 8ft shoulders. There are definitely stretches where it is clear the shoulder is narrower.
Quote from: froggie on October 09, 2017, 05:54:15 PM
When they began construction of it around the time I left Norfolk the first time, I recall articles and such talking about the design, and how it was to be 8ft shoulders. There are definitely stretches where it is clear the shoulder is narrower.
That is the standard shoulder on the 11.6-mile-long Route US-17 Relocation Project built 2003-2005.
I will grant the eyeball can not always estimate a shoulder width exactly.
I now see on my website article "US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake" that was last updated in 2007 --
"The median width is 42 feet, the traffic lanes are 12 feet wide, the paved right shoulders are 8 feet wide, and the paved left shoulders are 4 feet wide. Clear roadsides are typically 20 wide or wider. The highway is elevated 8 feet above the existing low-lying terrain. The highway is on a limited access right-of-way.
(Source: the VDOT design plans for the project)."
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2017, 08:42:35 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 09, 2017, 05:54:15 PM
When they began construction of it around the time I left Norfolk the first time, I recall articles and such talking about the design, and how it was to be 8ft shoulders. There are definitely stretches where it is clear the shoulder is narrower.
That is the standard shoulder on the 11.6-mile-long Route US-17 Relocation Project built 2003-2005.
I will grant the eyeball can not always estimate a shoulder width exactly.
I now see on my website article "US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake" that was last updated in 2007 --
"The median width is 42 feet, the traffic lanes are 12 feet wide, the paved right shoulders are 8 feet wide, and the paved left shoulders are 4 feet wide. Clear roadsides are typically 20 wide or wider. The highway is elevated 8 feet above the existing low-lying terrain. The highway is on a limited access right-of-way.
(Source: the VDOT design plans for the project)."
Then the basic question is: will both VDOT and the City of Chesapeake commit to any semblance of a long-term plan to upgrade that section of US 17 with grade separations and interchanges as needed? Because of the swamp terrain, they may be able to get some sort of waivers for that "missing" 2 feet of outer shoulder. But even if the route is shunted over to MSR 168, there's still the matter of the southernmost couple of miles of 168 in VA, which remains a multilane facility with scant access control. One would think that on balance the US 17 alignment would pose less a problem for upgrading than 168 -- although a "devil's advocate" approach would cite the "double duty" of an I-87 routed accordingly -- both as the major regional connector south of greater Hampton Roads
and as a tourism corridor to the Outer Banks.
But the principal obstacle to getting the "north-of-the border" section of I-87 done is simply that regardless of alignment most of the benefit of this corridor development accrues to NC rather than VA or its cities traversed by the highway. I'd venture a guess that that fact sticks in the craw of VA political types -- and thus they're in no hurry to address this corridor beyond what they've already done as a local server.
VA asked NCDOT to consider VA-168 because other than near the state line, no new interchanges will need to be built, though some of the existing ones may need modified. It's probably cheaper to upgrade VA-168 than US-17, which still has at-grades surrounded by businesses. However, VA might as well forget about the idea since the Army Corps of Engineers would never approve the connector route when there's an existing 4-lane highway nearby.
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2017, 12:38:15 AM
Then the basic question is: will both VDOT and the City of Chesapeake commit to any semblance of a long-term plan to upgrade that section of US 17 with grade separations and interchanges as needed? Because of the swamp terrain, they may be able to get some sort of waivers for that "missing" 2 feet of outer shoulder. But even if the route is shunted over to MSR 168, there's still the matter of the southernmost couple of miles of 168 in VA, which remains a multilane facility with scant access control. One would think that on balance the US 17 alignment would pose less a problem for upgrading than 168 -- although a "devil's advocate" approach would cite the "double duty" of an I-87 routed accordingly -- both as the major regional connector south of greater Hampton Roads and as a tourism corridor to the Outer Banks.
But the principal obstacle to getting the "north-of-the border" section of I-87 done is simply that regardless of alignment most of the benefit of this corridor development accrues to NC rather than VA or its cities traversed by the highway. I'd venture a guess that that fact sticks in the craw of VA political types -- and thus they're in no hurry to address this corridor beyond what they've already done as a local server.
These US-17 and VA-168 highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and will be for the foreseeable future. Therefore they are not on any radar screen for upgrading them to any higher type highway. The Tar Heel State is just being annoying here.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 06:52:17 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2017, 12:38:15 AM
Then the basic question is: will both VDOT and the City of Chesapeake commit to any semblance of a long-term plan to upgrade that section of US 17 with grade separations and interchanges as needed? Because of the swamp terrain, they may be able to get some sort of waivers for that "missing" 2 feet of outer shoulder. But even if the route is shunted over to MSR 168, there's still the matter of the southernmost couple of miles of 168 in VA, which remains a multilane facility with scant access control. One would think that on balance the US 17 alignment would pose less a problem for upgrading than 168 -- although a "devil's advocate" approach would cite the "double duty" of an I-87 routed accordingly -- both as the major regional connector south of greater Hampton Roads and as a tourism corridor to the Outer Banks.
But the principal obstacle to getting the "north-of-the border" section of I-87 done is simply that regardless of alignment most of the benefit of this corridor development accrues to NC rather than VA or its cities traversed by the highway. I'd venture a guess that that fact sticks in the craw of VA political types -- and thus they're in no hurry to address this corridor beyond what they've already done as a local server.
These US-17 and VA-168 highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and will be for the foreseeable future. Therefore they are not on any radar screen for upgrading them to any higher type highway. The Tar Heel State is just being annoying here.
Since the entire US 17 facility is already 4-lane divided from the state line to I-64, I can certainly see that unless there's local pressure for grade separations (more likely to happen re Dominion than the N-S segment through the swamp), any further improvement may be postponed within the planning entities of VDOT and Chesapeake as long as is feasible -- just posting "Future I-87 Corridor" signs along the way and leaving it at that. Nevertheless, if NC runs a completed I-87 up to the state line and the status quo persists north of there, pressure from several quarters (besides simply NCDOT and official allies, this may include "unofficial" actors such as trucking lobbies and even AAA) to effect the upgrades within VA may increase the noise level to the point where doing the upgrades poses less of a problem than maintaining a "no (further) build" position.
For better or worse, the political/publicity aspect of the road building process has emerged as the leading edge of virtually all plans, Interstate additions or not -- such is the nature of unfunded mandates combined with the hoopla surrounding the designation of a new corridor. In the case of this particular corridor, it's likely that NC being "annoying" is viewed within their own circles as simply maintaining the pressure to get their project completed as planned. The argument of simple
adequacy isn't liable to prevail in the long run -- although it's a perfectly useful delaying tactic. IMO, I-87 will eventually make it all the way to I-64 -- but it'll take a good deal of time and a high and continuous level of pressure to make this happen.
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2017, 12:13:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 06:52:17 AM
These US-17 and VA-168 highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and will be for the foreseeable future. Therefore they are not on any radar screen for upgrading them to any higher type highway. The Tar Heel State is just being annoying here.
Since the entire US 17 facility is already 4-lane divided from the state line to I-64, I can certainly see that unless there's local pressure for grade separations (more likely to happen re Dominion than the N-S segment through the swamp), any further improvement may be postponed within the planning entities of VDOT and Chesapeake as long as is feasible -- just posting "Future I-87 Corridor" signs along the way and leaving it at that. Nevertheless, if NC runs a completed I-87 up to the state line and the status quo persists north of there, pressure from several quarters (besides simply NCDOT and official allies, this may include "unofficial" actors such as trucking lobbies and even AAA) to effect the upgrades within VA may increase the noise level to the point where doing the upgrades poses less of a problem than maintaining a "no (further) build" position.
For better or worse, the political/publicity aspect of the road building process has emerged as the leading edge of virtually all plans, Interstate additions or not -- such is the nature of unfunded mandates combined with the hoopla surrounding the designation of a new corridor. In the case of this particular corridor, it's likely that NC being "annoying" is viewed within their own circles as simply maintaining the pressure to get their project completed as planned. The argument of simple adequacy isn't liable to prevail in the long run -- although it's a perfectly useful delaying tactic. IMO, I-87 will eventually make it all the way to I-64 -- but it'll take a good deal of time and a high and continuous level of pressure to make this happen.
It is a useless route proposal, for interstate traffic, for interregional traffic, and for local traffic. Out of the way connection between I-95 and South Hampton Roads, only a few small towns along the NC part of the route east of Rocky Mount, no major industries. I don't see any warrants for it even 30 years from today.
East of Rocky Mount the existing US-64 and US-17 are more than adequate for many years if not decades to come. Not enough there to warrant more than a 4-lane interregional highway like what is already there.
For connection between I-95 and South Hampton Roads, US-58 and I-95 is about 25 miles shorter, distance in and of itself dismiss using the US-64 and US-17 corridor. Particularly for large trucks. US-58 and I-95 are not going to stand still on improvements over the next 20 years, either.
Despite what it's billed as, I-87's true purpose isn't really to connect Raleigh and Norfolk, but to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia and of course, Raleigh. It's already spawned I-587, giving the hub of eastern NC, Greenville, an interstate link to I-95 and Raleigh. It also set up the possibility of an I-x87 connecting Kinston's Global Transpark and Greenville to Hampton Roads, dubbed the "Gateway Corridor". It didn't get anywhere because of last year's elections, but the Gateway Corridor idea is still alive and well in Kinston and Greenville.
https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/9/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation (https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/9/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation)
The city of Raleigh supports I-87 because it gives them a (somewhat) northerly connection to I-95 and it would be much easier to upgrade US-64 than US-1 between I-540 and I-85.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 12:36:08 PM
It is a useless route proposal, for interstate traffic, for interregional traffic, and for local traffic. Out of the way connection between I-95 and South Hampton Roads, only a few small towns along the NC part of the route east of Rocky Mount, no major industries. I don't see any warrants for it even 30 years from today.
East of Rocky Mount the existing US-64 and US-17 are more than adequate for many years if not decades to come. Not enough there to warrant more than a 4-lane interregional highway like what is already there.
For connection between I-95 and South Hampton Roads, US-58 and I-95 is about 25 miles shorter, distance in and of itself dismiss using the US-64 and US-17 corridor. Particularly for large trucks. US-58 and I-95 are not going to stand still on improvements over the next 20 years, either.
What I'm commenting on here is the reality of what's happening out there in transportation land -- not on the relative utility of the proposed I-87 corridor vis-Ã -vis the obviously shorter and more direct US 58 corridor within VA. All things being equal, US 58 should and would have been something like "I-56" from I-85 east to Chesapeake decades ago. But that hasn't happened -- with a great deal of the reason being that it's situated within the state of Virginia, which hasn't sought to deploy any new Interstate corridors within its borders (save the locally promoted but withering I-73 proposal) since the system's inception.
The one consistent thing about any new Interstate corridor under the present add-on methodology is:
someone has to ask for it!!! Again, as I've repeated in this forum until I'm blue in the face, the current system favors
want coupled with
political will and a healthy heaping of
cojones on the part of the instigators. What it disregards is a process that engages in compiling long drawn-out piles of data that point to the most effectual routing between specific points; in this particular instance, a US 58 facility would, hands down, emerge on top of any comparison. But there isn't a point of comparison seen. The I-87 rationale is, at least within NC, to wit:
A connector from Hampton Roads to southerly points along I-95 and by extension I-85 is long overdue; there's a designated corridor that's been in place for a quarter-century -- and it serves eastern NC along the way -- and it's about half completed to at least upgradeable standards. Yeah, it kind of snakes its way along the north side of one of our estuaries -- but to us (NC) that's a blessing, especially if we want to upgrade the rest of US 17 -- part of that whole project will be done courtesy of I-87. We wanted this route 25 years ago, but our attention was focused elsewhere in the state; we're finally getting around to addressing this issue. And we know VA's history makes it likely that they'll drag their feet about even the short connecting section in their state; while they have a potentially superior corridor available to them, they're not doing much about it. In short, we're the only game in town; everyone else seems to be sitting it out! To reiterate a cliche':
you gotta be in it to win it! What NC is doing is simple: the I-87 routing may not be the best option on paper -- far from it -- but it
is much more into the process of development than any other facility serving its particular end points. And once the NC portion is either done or close to it, they'll do what they have to put pressure on VA to make that final connection.
As it sits, the process of commissioning and constructing a new Interstate corridor comes down to more of a utilitarian process than one based on
a priori conceptualizations. And as has been demonstrated, NC is willing to take full advantage of that situation -- "no build" seems to not be an available option down there, whereas it appears to be the default position north of the state line. All NC is doing is electing not to reject the merely good while holding out for the very best/optimal (which wouldn't have been sited within their state anyway!).
I have a feeling Williamston will be as far north or east as Interstate 87 South will ever go.
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2017, 03:08:39 PM
Despite what it's billed as, I-87's true purpose isn't really to connect Raleigh and Norfolk, but to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia and of course, Raleigh.
There is very little population in eastern NC on that route once east of Rocky Mount, just a few small towns. For the umpteenth time, there is a very adequate 4-lane high speed highway already there; there is no need for an Interstate highway.
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2017, 03:08:39 PM
It's already spawned I-587, giving the hub of eastern NC, Greenville, an interstate link to I-95 and Raleigh. It also set up the possibility of an I-x87 connecting Kinston's Global Transpark and Greenville to Hampton Roads, dubbed the "Gateway Corridor". It didn't get anywhere because of last year's elections, but the Gateway Corridor idea is still alive and well in Kinston and Greenville.
The I-587 proposal is essentially an x95, and could be designated as such.
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2017, 03:08:39 PM
The city of Raleigh supports I-87 because it gives them a (somewhat) northerly connection to I-95 and it would be much easier to upgrade US-64 than US-1 between I-540 and I-85.
No argument with an Interstate highway between Raleigh and I-95, they have a full freeway now, and that route was already designated as Future I-495. It doesn't need to go east of I-95.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 06:34:23 PMThere is very little population in eastern NC on that route once east of Rocky Mount, just a few small towns. For the umpteenth time, there is a very adequate 4-lane high speed highway already there; there is no need for an Interstate highway.
No need to shoot the messenger. I only explained why there's support for it in NC. Hampton Roads has also supported it. I-87 itself doesn't go through high populated areas east of Rocky Mount, but it acts as an artery that the region south of US-64 can connect to, hence the push for the Gateway Corridor (NC-11/US-13) between Kinston and Bethel. I agree that the existing US-64/US-17 as they are now is adequate, especially compared to nearby US-70/Future I-42, which has been a nightmare for years. Why US-64 and US-264 were made freeways before US-70 is beyond me. :banghead:
QuoteThe I-587 proposal is essentially an x95, and could be designated as such.
I-595 was the original proposal, but that changed when Future I-495 was taken over by Future I-87.
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2017, 08:48:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 06:34:23 PMThere is very little population in eastern NC on that route once east of Rocky Mount, just a few small towns. For the umpteenth time, there is a very adequate 4-lane high speed highway already there; there is no need for an Interstate highway.
No need to shoot the messenger. I only explained why there's support for it in NC. Hampton Roads has also supported it. I-87 itself doesn't go through high populated areas east of Rocky Mount, but it acts as an artery that the region south of US-64 can connect to, hence the push for the Gateway Corridor (NC-11/US-13) between Kinston and Bethel. I agree that the existing US-64/US-17 as they are now is adequate, especially compared to nearby US-70/Future I-42, which has been a nightmare for years. Why US-64 and US-264 were made freeways before US-70 is beyond me. :banghead:
I haven't seen much support for it in Hampton Roads news media. US-64 already acts as an artery that the region south of US-64 can connect to, and Kinston is about 30 miles from there.
Since it's come up -- has there ever been any talk within VA transportation circles about deployment of an Interstate (or at least Interstate-grade) route along US 58 from I-85 east to the Hampton Roads metroplex? Since it's pretty much a consensus -- at least in this forum -- that such a route would be far superior to any other route intended to connect that metro area with NC and points south, has anyone put forth a serious proposal for such at either (a) at the state level or (b) in any form of media? If any posters based closer to the region have any info regarding such a proposal (or the lack thereof), please chime in!
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2017, 06:07:35 AM
Since it's come up -- has there ever been any talk within VA transportation circles about deployment of an Interstate (or at least Interstate-grade) route along US 58 from I-85 east to the Hampton Roads metroplex? Since it's pretty much a consensus -- at least in this forum -- that such a route would be far superior to any other route intended to connect that metro area with NC and points south, has anyone put forth a serious proposal for such at either (a) at the state level or (b) in any form of media? If any posters based closer to the region have any info regarding such a proposal (or the lack thereof), please chime in!
2010 study on the US 58 corridor with multimodal/freight considerations in mind: http://www.vtrans.org/resources/VSMMFS-II_US58.pdf
They do not even mention converting 58 into an interstate anywhere. Have not found any study in advance of the 1989 law creating the US 58 Corridor stuff.
Quotethe state of Virginia, which hasn't sought to deploy any new Interstate corridors within its borders (save the locally promoted but withering I-73 proposal) since the system's inception.
This is not an accurate statement. Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.
Also studied what to do with US 29 including freeway conversion/construction - summarized here - http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/Route_29/final/Chapt_5.pdf
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2017, 06:07:35 AM
Since it's come up -- has there ever been any talk within VA transportation circles about deployment of an Interstate (or at least Interstate-grade) route along US 58 from I-85 east to the Hampton Roads metroplex? Since it's pretty much a consensus -- at least in this forum -- that such a route would be far superior to any other route intended to connect that metro area with NC and points south, has anyone put forth a serious proposal for such at either (a) at the state level or (b) in any form of media? If any posters based closer to the region have any info regarding such a proposal (or the lack thereof), please chime in!
The only person who proposed making US-58 an interstate between I-77 and I-664 was a former GOP gubernatorial candidate Frank Wagner, who lost the primary earlier this year. Nobody else couldn't give two shits.
However, the HRTPO lists US-58 as being upgraded to interstate standards in the future between I-664 and the Suffolk bypass, but no I-shields were mentioned.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 09:24:03 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2017, 08:48:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 06:34:23 PMThere is very little population in eastern NC on that route once east of Rocky Mount, just a few small towns. For the umpteenth time, there is a very adequate 4-lane high speed highway already there; there is no need for an Interstate highway.
No need to shoot the messenger. I only explained why there's support for it in NC. Hampton Roads has also supported it. I-87 itself doesn't go through high populated areas east of Rocky Mount, but it acts as an artery that the region south of US-64 can connect to, hence the push for the Gateway Corridor (NC-11/US-13) between Kinston and Bethel. I agree that the existing US-64/US-17 as they are now is adequate, especially compared to nearby US-70/Future I-42, which has been a nightmare for years. Why US-64 and US-264 were made freeways before US-70 is beyond me. :banghead:
I haven't seen much support for it in Hampton Roads news media.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-A7-Hampton%2520Roads%2520to%2520Raleigh%2520Highway%2520Corridor-Future%2520Interstate%2520Designation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvzc6m7-jWAhUE7YMKHfF_CWQQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw1yDcObwpbIujuVJWQnIqeh (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-A7-Hampton%2520Roads%2520to%2520Raleigh%2520Highway%2520Corridor-Future%2520Interstate%2520Designation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvzc6m7-jWAhUE7YMKHfF_CWQQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw1yDcObwpbIujuVJWQnIqeh)
Quote from: LM117 on October 11, 2017, 11:27:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 09:24:03 PM
I haven't seen much support for it in Hampton Roads news media.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-A7-Hampton%2520Roads%2520to%2520Raleigh%2520Highway%2520Corridor-Future%2520Interstate%2520Designation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvzc6m7-jWAhUE7YMKHfF_CWQQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw1yDcObwpbIujuVJWQnIqeh (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-A7-Hampton%2520Roads%2520to%2520Raleigh%2520Highway%2520Corridor-Future%2520Interstate%2520Designation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvzc6m7-jWAhUE7YMKHfF_CWQQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw1yDcObwpbIujuVJWQnIqeh)
It appears from that article that most of the advocacy is coming from N.C.
One major quote that I dispute --
"Hampton Roads and Raleigh‐Cary are two of the largest metropolitan regions in the eastern United States served by a single primary Interstate route (I‐64 in the case of Hampton Roads). This initiative would create a second primary Interstate for both areas, and connect these two southern mid‐Atlantic economic engines together."
Baloney! As I have pointed out repeatedly, the out-of-the-way routing will NOT supplant the existing preferred traffic route between Hampton Roads and Raleigh-Durham, and it is irrelevant to claim that it is "a second primary Interstate" for Hampton Roads. Raleigh already has a Future I-x95 to connect it to I-95, just because it is not a "primary Interstate" does not mean that it is not a full member of the Interstate system.
Just because an official body concludes something doesn't make it right, logical or beneficial.
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 11, 2017, 06:54:06 AM
Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.
Did they "try" or did they just study it? 1960 was before the construction of the CBBT, so the apparent issue there is 17 miles of open sea that the Interstate would have to cross, and nobody had ever before built a crossing of anywhere near that length over open sea.
I recall that the 2006 study was ordered by the General Assembly to "determine the interest of the affected states" in an I-99 corridor between Wilmington DE and Charleston SC, traversing the Delmarva Peninsula.
The conclusion was "the level of response received from the majority of the four respondent states indicates little interest in new interstate / limited access improvements along the proposed corridor." It also said that Maryland's major efforts on its Eastern Shore will be to upgrade US-50 and MD-404.
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 11, 2017, 06:54:06 AM
Also studied what to do with US 29 including freeway conversion/construction - summarized here - http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/Route_29/final/Chapt_5.pdf
Unlike most states, N.C. is very pro-growth and pro-development and almost never has any local opposition to a proposal for a new freeway or new beltway.
A US-29 freeway or "I-83" has been theorized before in VA. Albemarle County would never approve such a route, and an MPO like CAMPO would need to approve such a project before the state could approve it. Without the segment in that county such an Interstate would not be possible, at least not a completed Interstate. Albemarle County won't even approve a US-29 bypass extension at Whoville.
Virginia extensively studied a western outer freeway bypass of Washington, D.C., but Maryland never showed any interest in building their segment, thus rendering the proposal of low value. This could have been an Interstate highway, perhaps I-93.
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 11, 2017, 06:54:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2017, 06:07:35 AM
.........the state of Virginia, which hasn't sought to deploy any new Interstate corridors within its borders (save the locally promoted but withering I-73 proposal) since the system's inception.
This is not an accurate statement. Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.
IIRC, the Eastern Shore proposal, including an expanded CBBT in the 2006 iteration, was instigated by Delaware and to a lesser degree by Maryland; Virginia went along with it only to appease much the same Hampton Roads interests that have provided what support there is within VA for the I-87 corridor, as cited by LM117:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-A7-Hampton%2520Roads%2520to%2520Raleigh%2520Highway%2520Corridor-Future%2520Interstate%2520Designation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvzc6m7-jWAhUE7YMKHfF_CWQQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw1yDcObwpbIujuVJWQnIqeh (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-A7-Hampton%2520Roads%2520to%2520Raleigh%2520Highway%2520Corridor-Future%2520Interstate%2520Designation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvzc6m7-jWAhUE7YMKHfF_CWQQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw1yDcObwpbIujuVJWQnIqeh)
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
Just because an official body concludes something doesn't make it right, logical or beneficial.
Yes -- but it makes it
doable as well as
feasible! While righteous indignation may be an appropriate response to something one believes to be a wasteful and unnecessary undertaking, it is just that -- an expressed opinion of opposition, equivalent to a "letter to the editor" on an op-ed page (albeit a virtual "op-ed page" largely dedicated to such expressions). But at this point the corridor in question is well under way regarding the developmental process; entities affected by this proposal have begun to get their "ducks in a row" to deal with it or, perhaps, take advantage of it (I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Pilot or other truck-stop operators are looking for suitable properties along US 64 or 17!); such is the nature of Interstate corridor development.
And, as I've previously stated, the eastern segment of US 58 east of I-85 would have provided the most efficient way to effect a southwest egress point from Hampton Roads; it's been serving as such, albeit in a less-than-optimal fashion, since I-85 and I-95 were built. But aside from the candidate Wagner as cited above, who simply yakked about it within the context of a political campaign (which tends to make such sentiments or opinions questionable at best), the concept of an Interstate route along this corridor hasn't been breached in official circles (VA DOT or other entities). Despite its logistic superiority, such a concept just hasn't even
reached the starting gate, much less any serious planning efforts. I'm sure regional posters could supply informed speculation as to why this has been the case: VA's commonwealth system, prioritization of greater NoVA needs, some internal VA criteria that favors the status quo
(adequate unless proven otherwise), and so on and so forth. But obviously the system utilized within NC, like it or not, appears to be more efficient at getting concepts translated into working realities. And thus a longer and intrinsically less efficient corridor with 90+% of its mileage within NC is born and, for lack of a better term, nurtured!
Perhaps it's just as simple as: NC sees benefit accruing from new Interstate mileage, while VA, for the most part, does not. That translates into difficulties for projects that cross that particular state line; the parties involved will likely work it out in the long run, with solutions that may reflect the compromises that would be required to achieve a reasonable result. We'll just have to see!
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2017, 12:34:06 PM
IIRC, the Eastern Shore proposal, including an expanded CBBT in the 2006 iteration, was instigated by Delaware and to a lesser degree by Maryland; Virginia went along with it only to appease much the same Hampton Roads interests that have provided what support there is
The 2006 VDOT study is online.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the DelDOT SecTrans says that they were considering extending the DE-1 superhighway to the Maryland state line following the US-113 corridor, possibly with an Interstate designation.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the MDOT SecTrans says that Maryland has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore. It is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades. It also said that while it is planning on upgrading US-113 to four lanes thruout, that it is not their preferred route for north-south inter-state traffic, that US-13 is their preferred route.
So while Delaware may be pursuing this, Maryland was definitely not interested.
Knowing Maryland highway planning as I do, I seriously doubt that there has been any change since 2006.
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2017, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2017, 12:34:06 PM
IIRC, the Eastern Shore proposal, including an expanded CBBT in the 2006 iteration, was instigated by Delaware and to a lesser degree by Maryland; Virginia went along with it only to appease much the same Hampton Roads interests that have provided what support there is
The 2006 VDOT study is online.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the DelDOT SecTrans says that they were considering extending the DE-1 superhighway to the Maryland state line following the US-113 corridor, possibly with an Interstate designation.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the MDOT SecTrans says that Maryland has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore. It is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades. It also said that while it is planning on upgrading US-113 to four lanes thruout, that it is not their preferred route for north-south inter-state traffic, that US-13 is their preferred route.
So while Delaware may be pursuing this, Maryland was definitely not interested.
Knowing Maryland highway planning as I do, I seriously doubt that there has been any change since 2006.
So it looks like DE and MD wouldn't have agreed upon a corridor alignment in any case (DE probably wanted to ensure or enhance access to their beach areas, hence the US 113/DE 1 corridor choice). Don't really fault MD for not wanting to deploy a main N-S corridor along US 113; there's plenty of industry in and around Salisbury to generate and receive truck traffic, so they would naturally be more interested in a corridor serving that city rather than one farther east (and the presence of an Interstate-grade Salisbury bypass doesn't hurt that prospect).
Long-term, if DE and MD can agree on this, I could see an Interstate-designated corridor using DE 1 south to Dover and US 13 or a close parallel down to Salisbury -- but nothing further than that unless a sea change happens re the attitudes in the VA portion of the peninsula (and the CBBT is brought out to 2+2 for its full length).
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2017, 05:04:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2017, 12:52:50 PM
The 2006 VDOT study is online.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the DelDOT SecTrans says that they were considering extending the DE-1 superhighway to the Maryland state line following the US-113 corridor, possibly with an Interstate designation.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the MDOT SecTrans says that Maryland has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore. It is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades. It also said that while it is planning on upgrading US-113 to four lanes thruout, that it is not their preferred route for north-south inter-state traffic, that US-13 is their preferred route.
So while Delaware may be pursuing this, Maryland was definitely not interested.
Knowing Maryland highway planning as I do, I seriously doubt that there has been any change since 2006.
So it looks like DE and MD wouldn't have agreed upon a corridor alignment in any case (DE probably wanted to ensure or enhance access to their beach areas, hence the US 113/DE 1 corridor choice). Don't really fault MD for not wanting to deploy a main N-S corridor along US 113; there's plenty of industry in and around Salisbury to generate and receive truck traffic, so they would naturally be more interested in a corridor serving that city rather than one farther east (and the presence of an Interstate-grade Salisbury bypass doesn't hurt that prospect).
Long-term, if DE and MD can agree on this, I could see an Interstate-designated corridor using DE 1 south to Dover and US 13 or a close parallel down to Salisbury -- but nothing further than that unless a sea change happens re the attitudes in the VA portion of the peninsula (and the CBBT is brought out to 2+2 for its full length).
Did you read what I wrote? Did you look at a map? US-113 is about 20 miles east of Salisbury. Delaware is not looking at the US-13 corridor. MDOT has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore. MDOT is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades. US-113 is not MDOT's preferred route for north-south traffic, US-13 is their preferred route.
Maryland is not planning any all-freeway corridor on the Eastern Shore, never has and probably never will.
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2017, 06:11:31 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2017, 05:04:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2017, 12:52:50 PM
The 2006 VDOT study is online.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the DelDOT SecTrans says that they were considering extending the DE-1 superhighway to the Maryland state line following the US-113 corridor, possibly with an Interstate designation.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the MDOT SecTrans says that Maryland has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore. It is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades. It also said that while it is planning on upgrading US-113 to four lanes thruout, that it is not their preferred route for north-south inter-state traffic, that US-13 is their preferred route.
So while Delaware may be pursuing this, Maryland was definitely not interested.
Knowing Maryland highway planning as I do, I seriously doubt that there has been any change since 2006.
So it looks like DE and MD wouldn't have agreed upon a corridor alignment in any case (DE probably wanted to ensure or enhance access to their beach areas, hence the US 113/DE 1 corridor choice). Don't really fault MD for not wanting to deploy a main N-S corridor along US 113; there's plenty of industry in and around Salisbury to generate and receive truck traffic, so they would naturally be more interested in a corridor serving that city rather than one farther east (and the presence of an Interstate-grade Salisbury bypass doesn't hurt that prospect).
Long-term, if DE and MD can agree on this, I could see an Interstate-designated corridor using DE 1 south to Dover and US 13 or a close parallel down to Salisbury -- but nothing further than that unless a sea change happens re the attitudes in the VA portion of the peninsula (and the CBBT is brought out to 2+2 for its full length).
Did you read what I wrote? Did you look at a map? US-113 is about 20 miles east of Salisbury. Delaware is not looking at the US-13 corridor. MDOT has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore. MDOT is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades. US-113 is not MDOT's preferred route for north-south traffic, US-13 is their preferred route.
Maryland is not planning any all-freeway corridor on the Eastern Shore, never has and probably never will.
In the immortal words of Bart Simpson,
don't have a cow, man! I'm just speculating as to what might occur if there is an actual meeting of the minds between the states that make up Delmarva. I've been to Salisbury several times; one of my vendors, Toroid of Maryland, has their corporate HQ and principal production plant there. I'm always surprised at the commercial traffic levels in and around a city of only about 40K population -- and at the resultant congestion, particularly on US 13 north of town. While you don't think that there's a chance in hell than there will ever be a continuous I-grade facility down the Delmarva, I'd posit that the congestion elsewhere along the Northeast Corridor will prompt further looks at such a corridor (if there would be some way to placate the NIMBY's in coastal VA) as a relief route. But I can't see MD engaging in any planning efforts that don't include Salisbury (commercially, it's the 800-pound gorilla of the peninsula). The corridor might not be fully situated down one existing N-S facility but may be a bit convoluted to serve the needs of DE (recreational coastal access, a main source of state revenue) and MD (the aforementioned city); this may require something heading down the 1/113 corridor for a while then veering west to serve Salisbury at a reasonable distance.
But this is all speculation verging on the fictional; it's not likely I'll see an Interstate corridor down Delmarva in the time that the actuarial tables project I'll have left (for the record, between 14 and 19 years). But at the same time -- and as should be obvious if anyone's read my various posts -- I have little or no reverence for the status quo; if two states are presently at loggerheads regarding planning efforts, I certainly don't assume that situation to be permanent. It'll take a lot of negotiation -- and a shitload of external pressure -- to get any project that crosses state lines to fruition. And right now that external pressure will likely come as the I-95/Northeast corridor itself gets ever more onerous to travel; alternatives will be explored -- and Delmarva is an obvious choice for the task of diverting through traffic away from the Baltimore/Washington/Richmond chokepoints. Hasn't gotten quite to that point yet -- but give it 15-20 more years -- and watch previously dismissed concepts revisited to the point where parochial concerns will be relegated to secondary status at best. When that happens, look out for the "Delmarva Thruway" as a considered concept.
But Scott's reading of the situation is probably valid for a few more years -- there won't be a near-term prioritization of any N-S corridor in that area. The only possible regional Interstate incursion would be if DE seeks such status for DE 1, which, unless there's some in-state movement to do so that hasn't yet been detected, is probably pointless. In any case, this whole Delmarva digression is too much of a detour from the original I-87/South discussion and should be broken off into its own thread if continued.
<< Delmarva north-south corridor >>
If you want to discuss it, how about doing it in the Fictional Highways group.
That is a good place for highway proposals that are not in STIPs or in 20-year Long Range Plans.
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2017, 12:08:42 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 11, 2017, 06:54:06 AM
Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.
Did they "try" or did they just study it? 1960 was before the construction of the CBBT, so the apparent issue there is 17 miles of open sea that the Interstate would have to cross, and nobody had ever before built a crossing of anywhere near that length over open sea.
Tried it in both 1945 and 1960. See my I-99 page which has links to the CTB Minutes that said so...
http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/i099.htm
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 11, 2017, 09:42:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2017, 12:08:42 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 11, 2017, 06:54:06 AM
Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.
Did they "try" or did they just study it? 1960 was before the construction of the CBBT, so the apparent issue there is 17 miles of open sea that the Interstate would have to cross, and nobody had ever before built a crossing of anywhere near that length over open sea.
Tried it in both 1945 and 1960. See my I-99 page which has links to the CTB Minutes that said so...
http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/i099.htm
I see both cases said it was dependent on including MD and DE in the scheme.
The 1945 page calls them Interregional Highways, what they were called at the time. I have a copy of the national report, _Interregional Highways, Report of the National Interregional Highway Committee_, 1944, and at that point they had not solidified on a 4-lane freeway design, 2-lane highway segments were one of the options, and they did not specifically require that the right-of-way had to be limited access. Nothing was said about a Bay crossing. The Bay ferry was in operation, from the 1930s to 1964.
The 1960 page did call for an Interstate Highway, and at that time in nearly every case it would have a 4-lane freeway design. It also mentions that the Bay crossing was approved and about to be built.
We have to keep in mind that US-13 south of Dover was a 2-lane highway then with no town bypasses. Its development into a 4-lane divided highway with town bypasses in the 1960s to 1970, changed the equation; while the former may logically warrant bypassing with a new 4-lane highway thruout, the latter is a very capable major interregional highway to where there are not nearly the level of warrants, if any, to bypass -that- highway with a new 4-lane highway thruout.
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2017, 08:39:55 PM
<< Delmarva north-south corridor >>
If you want to discuss it, how about doing it in the Fictional Highways group.
That is a good place for highway proposals that are not in STIPs or in 20-year Long Range Plans.
Fully agree -- appropriate place for any such speculation. Might just start a thread soon; got a couple of ideas. Stay tuned!
Could someone explain to me what the real purpose of I-87 would be? All I see is just the road number changing, and several rather useless construction projects taking place. Whats the real benefit of having "I-87" instead of "US 64 to US 17" ? It just feels like a waste of time, money, and effort to me.
Quote from: fillup420 on October 12, 2017, 12:25:35 PM
Could someone explain to me what the real purpose of I-87 would be?
The official purpose? To create an interstate connection between Raleigh and Norfolk.
The real purpose? To give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia.
While US-64 and US-17 are adequate as they are now, eastern NC wants the I-shield for marketing purposes when trying to lure businesses. They believe that advertising that they have an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast gives them a recruiting advantage that they didn't have before.
Quote from: fillup420 on October 12, 2017, 12:25:35 PM
Could someone explain to me what the real purpose of I-87 would be? All I see is just the road number changing, and several rather useless construction projects taking place. Whats the real benefit of having "I-87" instead of "US 64 to US 17" ? It just feels like a waste of time, money, and effort to me.
No meaningful purpose, as I have pointed out thru many of my posts.
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2017, 03:16:48 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on October 12, 2017, 12:25:35 PM
Could someone explain to me what the real purpose of I-87 would be? All I see is just the road number changing, and several rather useless construction projects taking place. Whats the real benefit of having "I-87" instead of "US 64 to US 17" ? It just feels like a waste of time, money, and effort to me.
No meaningful purpose, as I have pointed out thru many of my posts.
Quote from: LM117 on October 12, 2017, 02:53:16 PM
The official purpose? To create an interstate connection between Raleigh and Norfolk.
The real purpose? To give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia.
While US-64 and US-17 are adequate as they are now, eastern NC wants the I-shield for marketing purposes when trying to lure businesses. They believe that advertising that they have an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast gives them a recruiting advantage that they didn't have before.
Now that we're back on subject -- the I-87 corridor (the numbering process still gives me the creeps!) is just one of many corridors projected to connect inland areas of the Southern Seaboard to the various port areas along the coast; I-42 to the south being another. And any impetus to reroute I-74 (or a 3di spur) right into Wilmington is also part of this equation. Prompting this flurry of activity is one event:
Panamax; i.e., the expansion of the Panama Canal to allow large freighters to transport goods from Asia directly to U.S. Gulf and East Coast ports. Due to be fully operational by about 2021, what it does is eliminate the "land bridge" across the western and central states and dominated by BNSF and UP with their long-distance container service. Now the shipping lines can quote single rates from origin to destination and reap more profits for themselves (goods destined for the western half of the country will still require the services of the major western railroads). Even the eastern major rail lines (NS, CSX) are beefing up their lines and establishing hubs (CSX is doing so in Rocky Mount, NC) for distribution of their share of the inbound container traffic. However, about a third of containers coming in are bound directly for trucks for shipment to warehouses not situated along the major rail lines, or represent a small shipment (1 or 2 containers) more suited for truck transport -- and thus the push for increasingly efficient road egress from the ports to the locations of these distribution facilities. Much of the commercial development in eastern NC is geared toward this sort of activity, particularly in the region bounded by the I-42 corridor on the south and the I-87 corridor on the north and bisected by the nascent I-587. From all appearances, this neck of the woods is gearing up to become "warehouse central" for the Southern Seaboard. Securing effective egress means is Job #1; a handy corridor with no stops between the port and the warehouse is considered not only optimal but necessary to handle the expected volume of traffic in the briefest amount of time. Thus, I-87 and, in time, I-42. Whoever decided to extend I-40 down to Wilmington was a bit prescient; the port authority there has been dredging out the Cape Fear River to handle triple the present volume of inbound traffic. If & when the Interstate-grade corridor along US 74 is completed (and a similar-grade Charlotte connection is made),
that port will also likely find favor for its multiple egress points.
The very active Interstate addition/expansion concept in NC has one thing as its goal: to attract increasingly more business to the state, particularly in areas like East Carolina, which have received relatively short shrift in the past few decades
vis-Ã -vis other in-state locales such as the Research Triangle, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, and greater Charlotte. The eastern half of the state just wants its piece of the pie; and being a major regional distribution hub -- and recognized as such -- is seen as a feasible way to achieve that. All those Interstate corridors, 87 included, are merely means to that end. Whether the Panamax boom pans out in the long term remains to be seen -- but NC is doubling down on that prospect.
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2017, 05:14:09 PM
However, about a third of containers coming in are bound directly for trucks for shipment to warehouses not situated along the major rail lines, or represent a small shipment (1 or 2 containers) more suited for truck transport -- and thus the push for increasingly efficient road egress from the ports to the locations of these distribution facilities.
Warrants for a new highway need to be for multiple purposes, not just for better access for trucks. Say if this highway carries 10,000 AADT with 20% large trucks, that is only 2,000 trucks per day. That is not sufficient warrants to spend $25-30 million per mile or several billion dollars for a new Interstate highway. The state would be smarter to better educate the public and the business community about the value of a 4-lane interregional highway such as already exists, that it can easily and efficiently carry that much truck traffic and a lot more. There really are no other major warrants for this highway.
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2017, 05:35:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2017, 05:14:09 PM
However, about a third of containers coming in are bound directly for trucks for shipment to warehouses not situated along the major rail lines, or represent a small shipment (1 or 2 containers) more suited for truck transport -- and thus the push for increasingly efficient road egress from the ports to the locations of these distribution facilities.
Warrants for a new highway need to be for multiple purposes, not just for better access for trucks. Say if this highway carries 10,000 AADT with 20% large trucks, that is only 2,000 trucks per day. That is not sufficient warrants to spend $25-30 million per mile or several billion dollars for a new Interstate highway. The state would be smarter to better educate the public and the business community about the value of a 4-lane interregional highway such as already exists, that it can easily and efficiently carry that much truck traffic and a lot more. There really are no other major warrants for this highway.
NC rule:
We don't need no stinking warrants!!! Within NC, I-87 is functionally a
fait accompli; the Interstate designation in 2016 and the strong local backing will carry the day. NE NC interests want a Hampton Roads-serving 2di rambling through their midst, and NCDOT is willing to back their play; it fits right into the state wheelhouse. VDOT can hem and haw all they want, but in 15 years or so they'll have yet another Interstate lapping at their door dropping off extra traffic onto US 17. The NC locals don't want to be "educated" about how they should make do with what they've got -- the plain fact that their congressional delegation got HPC 13 "Interstate-ized" last year attests to their resolve to maximally develop that corridor. Remember -- there's no hard & fast criteria or checklists regarding rationales for deploying Interstate corridors, only vague guidelines; the only criteria that's considered these days are the physical standards of the facility itself. As I've stated on more than one occasion, it's become a political process, with victory going to the most persistent. Occasionally that process yields a corridor that's fully rational and needed (I-22, I-49), but occasionally some questionable ones slide through (I-41, I-14, etc.); such is the nature of a politicized arena. Barring a sea change in the process situations such as this are what we observers will be witnessing for the foreseeable future; we can only hope that the final results prove useful in the long haul.
Having said that -- AFAIK, the only outlay that's been undertaken (besides a few miles of I-87 signage east of Raleigh) has been studies of just how to effect corridor development along US 17 in several of the substandard locales. If I were a VA resident (who happens to reside in the state capital!) with a strong opinion regarding the inappropriateness of the HPC 13/I-87 corridor, I'd be getting my ass over to VDOT and/or the state legislature with a viable rationale for providing an alternative to that corridor before NC gets too far along with the upgrade process to stop. Of course, that alternative is US 58 east of I-85. Cite the fact that most of the ROW is in place and relatively ready for upgrade, and, if possible, replicate NC interests' position regarding the commercial benefits of such a routing. And, if necessary, get
really parochial about it -- frame it as a battle between NC self-interest and VA's ability to supply a much better alternative. The only way to stop a rural NC interstate-development process is to provide the proverbial better mousetrap. And if US 58
is that mousetrap, someone needs to advocate for that prospect before shovels are turned on the unbuilt I-87 segments.
Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 12:01:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2017, 05:35:51 PM
Warrants for a new highway need to be for multiple purposes, not just for better access for trucks. Say if this highway carries 10,000 AADT with 20% large trucks, that is only 2,000 trucks per day. That is not sufficient warrants to spend $25-30 million per mile or several billion dollars for a new Interstate highway. The state would be smarter to better educate the public and the business community about the value of a 4-lane interregional highway such as already exists, that it can easily and efficiently carry that much truck traffic and a lot more. There really are no other major warrants for this highway.
NC rule: We don't need no stinking warrants!!! Within NC, I-87 is functionally a fait accompli; the Interstate designation in 2016 and the strong local backing will carry the day. NE NC interests want a Hampton Roads-serving 2di rambling through their midst, and NCDOT is willing to back their play; it fits right into the state wheelhouse. VDOT can hem and haw all they want, but in 15 years or so they'll have yet another Interstate lapping at their door dropping off extra traffic onto US 17. The NC locals don't want to be "educated" about how they should make do with what they've got -- the plain fact that their congressional delegation got HPC 13 "Interstate-ized" last year attests to their resolve to maximally develop that corridor. Remember -- there's no hard & fast criteria or checklists regarding rationales for deploying Interstate corridors, only vague guidelines; the only criteria that's considered these days are the physical standards of the facility itself. As I've stated on more than one occasion, it's become a political process, with victory going to the most persistent. Occasionally that process yields a corridor that's fully rational and needed (I-22, I-49), but occasionally some questionable ones slide through (I-41, I-14, etc.); such is the nature of a politicized arena. Barring a sea change in the process situations such as this are what we observers will be witnessing for the foreseeable future; we can only hope that the final results prove useful in the long haul.
Having said that -- AFAIK, the only outlay that's been undertaken (besides a few miles of I-87 signage east of Raleigh) has been studies of just how to effect corridor development along US 17 in several of the substandard locales. If I were a VA resident (who happens to reside in the state capital!) with a strong opinion regarding the inappropriateness of the HPC 13/I-87 corridor, I'd be getting my ass over to VDOT and/or the state legislature with a viable rationale for providing an alternative to that corridor before NC gets too far along with the upgrade process to stop. Of course, that alternative is US 58 east of I-85. Cite the fact that most of the ROW is in place and relatively ready for upgrade, and, if possible, replicate NC interests' position regarding the commercial benefits of such a routing. And, if necessary, get really parochial about it -- frame it as a battle between NC self-interest and VA's ability to supply a much better alternative. The only way to stop a rural NC interstate-development process is to provide the proverbial better mousetrap. And if US 58 is that mousetrap, someone needs to advocate for that prospect before shovels are turned on the unbuilt I-87 segments.
"NC rule: We don't need no stinking warrants!!!"
If that is how they really feel, and they want to try to armtwist other states into going along with their schemes, then IMHO they can pound sand!
"VDOT can hem and haw all they want, but in 15 years or so they'll have yet another Interstate lapping at their door dropping off extra traffic onto US 17."
I don't think so. Timewise probably much longer than that if NCDOT pushes ahead with this, and I don't see much additional traffic being generated by this NC highway, given the low population and low business development in that part of NC. It's not positioned to handle beach traffic. At the border the US-17 AADT is 12,000 with 7% large trucks, and those are the figures for the whole expressway-grade segment up to VA-165 Cedar Road. Those are Rural Arterial Highway warrants, not Interstate Highway warrants, particularly with the low truck percentage.
VDOT has many much higher expensive priorities (Interstate, arterial, urban and secondary projects, and of course HR crossings) than upgrading a highway segment that won't warrant a freeway for several decades if at all.
It seems like one of the NC goals with I-87 is to potentially increase the level, and hence the percentage, of truck traffic on this corridor. Obviously, the whole thing is a calculated gamble that the corridor will itself induce very high levels of commercial growth, particularly along or near the US 64 segment once the levels of activity at the various Hampton Roads ports increases due to Panamax. Couple this with the fact that there's already 97 miles of freeway mileage along the E-W portion of the corridor, either already Interstate grade or upgradeable to such, and you've got a recipe for this particular iteration of "NC Interstate Fever". No cure; the ailment will just run its course. The only thing that could derail I-87 is a very drawn-out development schedule that would allow other projects, such as I-42, the in-progress freeway corridor along US 74 between I-26 and I-85, or focus on completing most of I-73/74, to steal the limelight away from 87. If I-87 isn't competed within NC by 2036-37, it's more than likely that whatever remains to be done will be "back-burnered" at that time; the impetus will have long dissipated.
Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 05:29:37 PM
It seems like one of the NC goals with I-87 is to potentially increase the level, and hence the percentage, of truck traffic on this corridor. Obviously, the whole thing is a calculated gamble that the corridor will itself induce very high levels of commercial growth, particularly along or near the US 64 segment once the levels of activity at the various Hampton Roads ports increases due to Panamax. Couple this with the fact that there's already 97 miles of freeway mileage along the E-W portion of the corridor, either already Interstate grade or upgradeable to such, and you've got a recipe for this particular iteration of "NC Interstate Fever". No cure; the ailment will just run its course. The only thing that could derail I-87 is a very drawn-out development schedule that would allow other projects, such as I-42, the in-progress freeway corridor along US 74 between I-26 and I-85, or focus on completing most of I-73/74, to steal the limelight away from 87. If I-87 isn't competed within NC by 2036-37, it's more than likely that whatever remains to be done will be "back-burnered" at that time; the impetus will have long dissipated.
I really don't think it would induce high levels of commercial growth, I think that is a very questionable assumption. I count at least 11 east coast ports that are working to attract Panamax marine traffic, including one in N.C., Wilmington. These ports are deepening their channels. Savannah and Brunswick and Charleston recently built very high clearance harbor bridges, partly for that reason. So the Panamax traffic may be well distributed along the east coast from Miami to Boston.
Exactly!!! NC has two ports that have been dredged or are in the process of being dredged to accommodate the largest container vessels -- Wilmington and Morehead City. The first features ample rail and Interstate service, which may be enhanced when and if I-74 or a child route extends from the west; the second is the basic raison d'etre for I-42. But they're relatively new ports without long-term pedigree; Wilmington exports more than it imports (export tobacco accounts for much of that), and Morehead is, to most overseas corporations, an unknown factor as of yet. It is more than likely that the "Big Three" of southern seaboard ports: Norfolk, Charleston, and Savannah -- will split the lion's share of inbound traffic, as they are established facilities with a proven track record. In time, the NC ports will get their share (particularly if they engage in competition re pricing), but for the foreseeable future, it's likely that overseas shippers will prefer the known quantity. Thus northeast NC, which wishes to recast itself as a major national distribution hub, has elected to enhance the corridor between the nearest established port facility and themselves. Also, it's widely understood that the presence of an Interstate trunk is a benchmark necessity for regions to attract warehouse/distribution facilities of overseas corporations. Thus with I-87 the eastern region of NC is simply hedging its bets -- by providing a maximally efficient road corridor to a port with ample capacity plus a proven record (Norfolk), that region is demonstrating that it's up to the task of functioning as a commercial hub. To the interests in that region, it's just good business!
Honestly, I don't have a problem with I-87 (nor I-587) but by the same token, Scott is right in that US-64 and US-17 are fine for at least the next 20 years and that money is better spent elsewhere in the here and now.
I-42/US-70 and I-795/US-117 are the corridors that need to be top priority in eastern NC right now, IMO.
Quote from: sparker on October 14, 2017, 01:20:56 AM
Exactly!!! NC has two ports that have been dredged or are in the process of being dredged to accommodate the largest container vessels -- Wilmington and Morehead City. The first features ample rail and Interstate service, which may be enhanced when and if I-74 or a child route extends from the west; the second is the basic raison d'etre for I-42. But they're relatively new ports without long-term pedigree; Wilmington exports more than it imports (export tobacco accounts for much of that), and Morehead is, to most overseas corporations, an unknown factor as of yet. It is more than likely that the "Big Three" of southern seaboard ports: Norfolk, Charleston, and Savannah -- will split the lion's share of inbound traffic, as they are established facilities with a proven track record. In time, the NC ports will get their share (particularly if they engage in competition re pricing), but for the foreseeable future, it's likely that overseas shippers will prefer the known quantity. Thus northeast NC, which wishes to recast itself as a major national distribution hub, has elected to enhance the corridor between the nearest established port facility and themselves. Also, it's widely understood that the presence of an Interstate trunk is a benchmark necessity for regions to attract warehouse/distribution facilities of overseas corporations. Thus with I-87 the eastern region of NC is simply hedging its bets -- by providing a maximally efficient road corridor to a port with ample capacity plus a proven record (Norfolk), that region is demonstrating that it's up to the task of functioning as a commercial hub. To the interests in that region, it's just good business!
Except they can't make a decision on what roads are built in other states, or make assumptions about them. Major highways should not be built on one-dimensional justifications.
The Port of Virginia already has an extensive highway and railroad system connecting to the west and northwest of the port, with warehouses and distribution centers.
These eastern cities have large established ports -- Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Brunswick, Savannah, Charleston, Hampton Roads, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Providence, Boston, Portland. Panamax imports will be well distributed among them, not to mention at least 7 ports on the Gulf of Mexico.
In that case, NC will just build the corridor up to the state line and let it go at that -- and let VA take flack from road users pissing & moaning about being held up at traffic lights on Dominion (probably nary a peep about the swamp section of US 17 unless a few major traffic accidents -- like T-bones -- occur as a result of cross traffic). I suppose if VA agrees to post "TO I-87" trailblazers along US 17 and its approaches that would be a reasonable interim situation until such time as upgrades are approved and constructed. But I don't see VA reluctance quashing the NC portion of the project; to its backers, there's too much at stake to throw in the towel; its not unlikely that their plan calls for doing what they can on their side of the playing field and then applying continuous pressure on the VA actors until (a) a change in attitude occurs over time within VA transportation circles or (b) in time VDOT and cohorts capitulate just so they don't have to deal with a constant barrage of entreaties from south of the border.
The word should, ensconced in a priori conceptualizations as it is, has little or no value in today's hyper-utilitarian world of transportation planning & policy. Relatively few agencies or interests can afford to disregard the doable simply because it isn't optimal. This corridor certainly fits that category -- believe me, if I were planning a SE Interstate-grade outlet from Hampton Roads US 17 would be, well, about my 3rd or 4th choice. But if that's where the funding is headed, then the die has indeed been cast. There might be consequences for VA if they don't follow through -- then, again, those may well prove to be minimal. So be prepared for construction south of the state line and a shitload of inbound emails, phone calls, and political pressure to the north. That's the way things seem to be done these days, for better or worse!
It would be somewhat amusing if NC is desperate enough to somehow manage to fund VA's portion of the highway upgrades.
ISTM that Virginia is in the position that it can wait for North Carolina to build its portion and then see if it actually brings the additional truck traffic NC thinks will occur. Then VDOT can upgrade US 17 if the traffic actually materializes that overpowers the 2 remaining stop-lighted intersections.
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 14, 2017, 05:56:04 PM
ISTM that Virginia is in the position that it can wait for North Carolina to build its portion and then see if it actually brings the additional truck traffic NC thinks will occur. Then VDOT can upgrade US 17 if the traffic actually materializes that overpowers the 2 remaining stop-lighted intersections.
Those two signalized intersections are on the southern part of the recently widened Dominion Boulevard. If the need arises in the future then they can build interchanges there.
Sparker seems to be driving really hard on this I-87 proposal. I wonder that if he isn't on the Eastern NC CoC, then what is he doing differently than if he
is on the Eastern NC CoC?
Quote from: BeltwayThese eastern cities have large established ports -- Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Brunswick, Savannah, Charleston, Hampton Roads, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Providence, Boston, Portland. Panamax imports will be well distributed among them, not to mention at least 7 ports on the Gulf of Mexico.
Norfolk *MAY* have a leg up and pick up more PANAMAX traffic than most of the others mentioned, given that it and NYC's port approaches are naturally deep. Norfolk is also regularly dredged to close-to-PANAMAX-size standards because of the aircraft carriers stationed there.
Quote from: froggie on October 14, 2017, 08:39:06 PM
Quote from: BeltwayThese eastern cities have large established ports -- Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Brunswick, Savannah, Charleston, Hampton Roads, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Providence, Boston, Portland. Panamax imports will be well distributed among them, not to mention at least 7 ports on the Gulf of Mexico.
Norfolk *MAY* have a leg up and pick up more PANAMAX traffic than most of the others mentioned, given that it and NYC's port approaches are naturally deep. Norfolk is also regularly dredged to close-to-PANAMAX-size standards because of the aircraft carriers stationed there.
Nearly all eastern ports meet current Panamax containership standards, 39-40 feet depth.
As the containership fleet is upgraded to larger ships, there are later Panamax stages.
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/conc4en/uswaterwaysystem.html
Four ports currently meet the later standard for 48-50 foot depth -- Miami, Hampton Roads, Baltimore and NY-NJ.
Other eastern and gulf ports have plans to upgrade to at or near that depth --
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/appl1en/table_east_coast_port_projects.html
The dredging projects are dynamic and are part of the means of competition for containership traffic.
Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2017, 07:17:07 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 14, 2017, 05:56:04 PM
ISTM that Virginia is in the position that it can wait for North Carolina to build its portion and then see if it actually brings the additional truck traffic NC thinks will occur. Then VDOT can upgrade US 17 if the traffic actually materializes that overpowers the 2 remaining stop-lighted intersections.
Those two signalized intersections are on the southern part of the recently widened Dominion Boulevard. If the need arises in the future then they can build interchanges there.
Sparker seems to be driving really hard on this I-87 proposal. I wonder that if he isn't on the Eastern NC CoC, then what is he doing differently than if he is on the Eastern NC CoC?
FYI, I'm (obviously) not on any NC CoC or is my consultation firm contracted by any NC interests at this time. I just think that
some iteration of a Hampton Roads Interstate-grade corridor providing access to the southwest has been long overdue, considering the growth of both the area and its port facilities. Couple this with the population and commercial growth of the NC "Research Triangle" and you have an obvious "target" zone for the other end of such a corridor. Now, again obviously, the corridor doesn't have to directly serve the area; all it needs to do is feed into an existing facility that does so. If VA had had the wherewithal to promote US 58 as the most efficient of all the corridor possibilities (which it actually is!), a
really useful facility would have already been in use -- one that could access I-85 and all the areas along its length, as well as I-95 -- and through the short US 64 section between Raleigh and I-95 originally propos ed and partially signed as I-495 -- the rest of the "Triangle". But, for various reasons (mainly because it's in Virginia!) that didn't occur. So, 25 years after it was codified as HPC #13, the corridor (which, IMO, should have used US 13 rather than the less direct US 17) was finally folded into the Interstate compendium. No, it's not the optimal choice; the corridor as legislated never was to begin with. But it's there, and NC interests are behind it to the point that it's pretty much a lock for construction over the next 15 years or so (of course, depending upon the whims of in-state politicos). Attempts to derail this process, absent a viable alternative, would be at best quixotic and a waste of effort. And I for one applaud any efforts to effect needed corridors; while I would prefer a more efficient alternative, I don't dismiss the imperfect just because it
is imperfect. And considering the proclivities within NC, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see, in the next 20-25 years or so, full development of US 17 between Williamston and Wilmington as an Interstate-grade route -- and at least the northern/I-87 portion of that would have been developed ahead of the inevitable inflationary cycle.
Let's put it this way -- as someone who's studied this sort of thing for close to a half-century -- and seen the process go through many iterations only to end up as a political football -- any serious attempt to establish a viable Interstate corridor -- albeit often a flawed example -- is something I see as a positive development. There's not a project across the country of this type of which I've developed a white-hot despising despite shortcomings -- I'm just glad to see activity in the arena -- it's reassuring to see that the whole notion of efficient interregional roadways hasn't been cast aside for ideological or cynical reasons.
Just as "Beltway" wonders about my motivations here; I also wonder what is happening on their side of the issue -- why the adamant dismissal of this particular corridor. I can see -- but not agree with -- a postion that the Interstate system doesn't need expansion, and that current roads are adequate for their purposes -- or even a standpoint that requires a degree of vetting of such corridors that only the
very most deserving survive the process. And in a way I can sympathize with those who decry the transformation of the Interstate-designation process from a merit-based approach to one where political considerations more often than not prevail. But I'm pretty much a utilitarian -- if a corridor is proposed -- and it's not completely gratuitous -- I have to look at it on balance: do the benefits, even those best described as potential, outweigh the negative aspects of the project (raw cost, environmental considerations, etc.). With I-87, the needle, as I have calculated it, is above center -- while it's a bit rambling in its alignment and doesn't contact any significant metro areas east of the Rocky Mount-Tarboro extended region (its negatives), it does provide that needed link between the two metro areas that it was intended to connect, it achieves a level of developmental efficiency because of the 97 miles of freeway from Raleigh to Williamston (only marginal levels of property acquisition for necessary upgrades) and the fact that much of the remainder of the route can be finalized by upgrading of existing facilities, and even the portion in VA won't be too hard to upgrade. And it certainly doesn't hurt that it, because of its US 17 routing, can function as an evacuation route in case of hurricanes and/or other regional disasters (not that it can't now, but getting rid of cross traffic
would help in this regard). And it's actually pretty scenic in nice weather (at least the US 17 portion; I've been on it a couple of times). Not perfect by any means, but on balance not too shabby! I'm just not one to dismiss the feasible because it isn't perfect.
Now if they could just listen to reason regarding that fucking number.......................
<<< With I-87, the needle, as I have calculated it, is above center -- while it's a bit rambling in its alignment and doesn't contact any significant metro areas east of the Rocky Mount-Tarboro extended region (its negatives), it does provide that needed link between the two metro areas that it was intended to connect >>>
That is the reason why it effectively does -not- connect Raleigh and Norfolk. It does not supplant the very capable existing Interstate and interregional route which has SYP improvement projects coming in the near future.
You could say that an Interstate connection already exists, Future I-495, I-95 and I-64. But that would be a bit absurd to think that traffic would utilize a far out of the way routing. That is the point!
Southerly routes into N.C. are not feasible for Hampton Roads hurricane evacuation, and are not recommended as that would generally take you toward the storm and/or into areas already impacted by storm damage and flooding.
Hurricane evacuation routes are to the west, northwest and north
https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1290
I don't have the "Interstate-itis" that lots of roadgeeks seem to have. Interstates obviously have their role, and there are some valid proposals for new Interstate routes, but there are also proposals that IMHO are nothing but pork.
Not sure if it would be too late to change the current route or not, but IMO the routing of I-87 should have been Raliegh to Rocky Mount via US-64, then overlaps I-95 for about 60 miles north to Emporia, before finally following/upgrading the US-58 corridor east all the way to Bowers Hill. This is the most direct/quickest route between the two metro areas(assuming the US-13 route is not an option) and by far already the most popular route between them as well. Not only would this interstate become far more attractive to Virginia(as a couple of GOP hopeful candidates have expressed interest in turning the corridor into an interstate already), it would make the interstate definitively east/west, hopefully promoting a name change. As for US-64 east of Rocky Mount, NC could turn that into an X-87 if they really wanted to in order to satisfy northeast NC, while also not having to deal with VA wanting nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2017, 10:24:31 PM
I don't have the "Interstate-itis" that lots of roadgeeks seem to have. Interstates obviously have their role, and there are some valid proposals for new Interstate routes, but there are also proposals that IMHO are nothing but pork.
With all due respect Beltway, did you not do this?
QuotePart of my highway advocacy efforts will be to submit detailed justifications to VDOT recommending that they pursue designation as Interstate routes on the following. Good candidates every one.
VA-895 ==> I-895
VA-195 ==> I-195
VA-288 ==> I-695
VA-164 ==> I-164
MLK Fwy segment ==> I-764
VA-267 ==> I-595
My comment about valid proposals for new Interstate routes, I was meaning new location routes, involving new construction. Those 6 routes are already built to Interstate standards and are already in functional roles as auxiliary Interstate routes. IMHO anyhow.
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2017, 11:33:54 PM
My comment about valid proposals for new Interstate routes, I was meaning new location routes, involving new construction. Those 6 routes are already built to Interstate standards and are already in functional roles as auxiliary Interstate routes. IMHO anyhow.
Ok thanks for the clarification and agreed^
Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 15, 2017, 11:13:05 PM
Not sure if it would be too late to change the current route or not, but IMO the routing of I-87 should have been Raliegh to Rocky Mount via US-64, then overlaps I-95 for about 60 miles north to Emporia, before finally following/upgrading the US-58 corridor east all the way to Bowers Hill. This is the most direct/quickest route between the two metro areas(assuming the US-13 route is not an option) and by far already the most popular route between them as well. Not only would this interstate become far more attractive to Virginia(as a couple of GOP hopeful candidates have expressed interest in turning the corridor into an interstate already), it would make the interstate definitively east/west, hopefully promoting a name change. As for US-64 east of Rocky Mount, NC could turn that into an X-87 if they really wanted to in order to satisfy northeast NC, while also not having to deal with VA wanting nothing to do with it.
Yea...pretty sure it's already too late for that. Besides, once it's done, it will probably as fast , if not faster to get to Norfolk since it will be completely 70 mph and will avoid the speed traps in the Emporia area. I"m sure the officials in the Emporia area want to keep things as they are, so I"m sure they would fight hard to put an interstate through that area pretty hard.
Quote from: michealbondI"m sure the officials in the Emporia area want to keep things as they are, so I"m sure they would fight hard to put an interstate through that area pretty hard.
I've conceptualized a routing that would primarily keep such a route in Greensville County (which IMO is a worse jurisdiction for speeding tickets than Emporia itself is). VDOT and NCDOT could also theoretically build a new-alignment route along the NC/VA 186/SR 671 corridor that would even further avoid Emporia (and could tie into NCDOT plans for some sort of US 158 bypass/realignment near Roanoke Rapids).
Emporia would also have to tread carefully, because outright opposition to an Interstate-grade US 58 would expose them and their police department for the type of speed trapping that most roadgeeks accuse them of doing (but, despite years stationed in Norfolk and traveling through Emporia, I never actually saw or experienced).
Quote from: michealbond on October 16, 2017, 10:31:01 AM
Besides, once it's done, it will probably as fast , if not faster to get to Norfolk since it will be completely 70 mph
No! It would be about 25 miles longer, do the math, the new route would take considerably more time, and for large trucks with their low fuel mileage there would be a substantial financial penalty as well.
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2017, 10:24:31 PM
<<< With I-87, the needle, as I have calculated it, is above center -- while it's a bit rambling in its alignment and doesn't contact any significant metro areas east of the Rocky Mount-Tarboro extended region (its negatives), it does provide that needed link between the two metro areas that it was intended to connect >>>
That is the reason why it effectively does -not- connect Raleigh and Norfolk. It does not supplant the very capable existing Interstate and interregional route which has SYP improvement projects coming in the near future.
You could say that an Interstate connection already exists, Future I-495, I-95 and I-64. But that would be a bit absurd to think that traffic would utilize a far out of the way routing. That is the point!
Southerly routes into N.C. are not feasible for Hampton Roads hurricane evacuation, and are not recommended as that would generally take you toward the storm and/or into areas already impacted by storm damage and flooding.
Hurricane evacuation routes are to the west, northwest and north
https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1290
I don't have the "Interstate-itis" that lots of roadgeeks seem to have. Interstates obviously have their role, and there are some valid proposals for new Interstate routes, but there are also proposals that IMHO are nothing but pork.
I wasn't thinking of hurricane-evacuation routes
out of Hampton Roads -- more like evacuation routes from NE NC either
into the Roads or SW toward Williamston and the US 64 segment of the I-87 corridor, which presumably would be single-direction during such an emergency. Would be a bit unrealistic to think that the entire population of VA Beach/Chesapeake/Norfolk could be evacuated
anywhere in an emergency; there would need to be "shelter in place" plans in order to deal with that type of event.
I don't have "interstatitis" like some on the forum; I'm simply reasoning that optimally there would have been in place a system (following the format used for the 1968 batch of additions) to regularly assess the network with an eye toward programming and constructing additions as demographic changes occur across the country. Unfortunately, the Nixonian effort to shove impetus downward to the state level in the early '70's threw the proverbial monkey wrench into any such prospects. It also insured that politics -- on every level -- would be the driving force behind any future projects -- producing a broad mix of rationales for new Interstate corridor development. Barring a change in the legislative agendas at both national and state levels to a postition favoring increased expenditures for interregional facilities, all of us are stuck with the system
in situ! Someone somewhere has to see any given corridor proposal as benefiting their constituency -- or, at least as often, their or their constituency's pocketbooks -- to get any project off the ground. You may not like the prospect of a corridor
not standing solely on its own merits as a connector -- but today's reality is twofold: (a) it has to serve as many parties as possible in order to gain political and economic support, and (b) after 61 years, the Interstate system has become its own rationale; to potential overseas investors in the US economy, Interstate=egress. It's not a game of horseshoes; "leaners" (in this sense, "adequate" non-Interstate freeways or expressways) don't count! So the prospect of East Carolina transforming into a major East Coast distribution hub has become the driving force for the I-87 corridor alignment as presently planned. They -- the backers of this corridor in and out of NC state circles -- are the ones with "interstateitis", and they have the wherewithal to polish off at least the in-state portion of the corridor. As an observer, I'm just acknowledging the realities encountered with just about any corridor project these days. Even such a worthy connector as I-22 would have been "stuck in the mud", so to speak, until Toyota insisted upon a close Interstate connection as a prerequisite for constructing their Tupelo, MS assembly plant. Like it or not; for better or worse; yada yada......
it is what it is!
Quote from: sparker on October 16, 2017, 02:26:44 PM
I wasn't thinking of hurricane-evacuation routes out of Hampton Roads -- more like evacuation routes from NE NC either into the Roads or SW toward Williamston and the US 64 segment of the I-87 corridor, which presumably would be single-direction during such an emergency. Would be a bit unrealistic to think that the entire population of VA Beach/Chesapeake/Norfolk could be evacuated anywhere in an emergency; there would need to be "shelter in place" plans in order to deal with that type of event.
If you would look at the site I posted you would see that indeed Virginia does have mass evacuation plans for major hurricanes, which ideally would start 2 or 3 days in advance.
No way that emergency service officials would send evacuees -into- the Hampton Roads area, since the typical hurricane track that hits eastern N.C. will hit southeastern Virginia next. Westward is the plan, and a US-64 freeway already exists from Williamston westward.
So you are left with a one-dimensional justification for I-87 -- the prospect of possible increases in truck traffic for possible warehouse development in eastern N.C. That is the definition of -pork-.
So what's new? Since 1973, almost all Interstate additions (save the ones financed through the Howard-Cramer Act) have had more than a few ounces of pork; that's part & parcel of the system. Even direct connections such as I-22 and I-49 have had the pot sweetened by the prospects of localized benefit. Before no-tax/no-spend ideology stuck its head into the mix, this was the modus operandi of Congress regarding domestic projects in and out of the transportation realm. And, for the most part, it functioned quite smoothly -- representatives had something to point to when they stood for reelection, rather than stir up resentment and even hatred to draw in marginal constituents. For better or worse, "pork" worked reasonably well to get things done.
Carla (GF) was looking over my shoulder while I was writing this reply and, prompted by the reference to pork, reminded me that we haven't been over to the Smoking Pig for several weeks for ribs and "wolf turds" (their term for rib ends wrapped in bacon). So Sunday "date night" venue is now settled. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the merits of the I-87 (still hate that number!) corridor -- but thanks for the porcine reference!
P.S. -- after finally looking at the Hampton Roads hurricane plan (which, except for the list of evacuation routes and storm-surge diagrams seems pretty vague), it's pretty obvious that besides US 64 westward from Williamston, NC, anyone trying to move NW out of the Outer Banks and Elizabeth City area would likely just head west on US 158. The sole reason to go north would be if (a) 158 were jammed and (b) northward traffic would eventually head west on 58 or 460, which have greater capacity than the more direct 158 in any case.
Quote from: froggie on October 16, 2017, 10:57:02 AM
Quote from: michealbondI"m sure the officials in the Emporia area want to keep things as they are, so I"m sure they would fight hard to put an interstate through that area pretty hard.
Emporia would also have to tread carefully, because outright opposition to an Interstate-grade US 58 would expose them and their police department for the type of speed trapping that most roadgeeks accuse them of doing (but, despite years stationed in Norfolk and traveling through Emporia, I never actually saw or experienced).
Lucky you. I just came through the area twice today and US-58 between Emporia and Suffolk was crawling with cops.
Quote from: sparker on October 16, 2017, 10:28:15 PM
P.S. -- after finally looking at the Hampton Roads hurricane plan (which, except for the list of evacuation routes and storm-surge diagrams seems pretty vague), it's pretty obvious that besides US 64 westward from Williamston, NC, anyone trying to move NW out of the Outer Banks and Elizabeth City area would likely just head west on US 158. The sole reason to go north would be if (a) 158 were jammed and (b) northward traffic would eventually head west on 58 or 460, which have greater capacity than the more direct 158 in any case.
Implementation details on what routes to use and when, would vary depending on the storm diameter, category level, track speed, and track itself. That page is a framework, and the details would be announced thru the media for that particular storm.
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 10:56:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 16, 2017, 10:28:15 PM
P.S. -- after finally looking at the Hampton Roads hurricane plan (which, except for the list of evacuation routes and storm-surge diagrams seems pretty vague), it's pretty obvious that besides US 64 westward from Williamston, NC, anyone trying to move NW out of the Outer Banks and Elizabeth City area would likely just head west on US 158. The sole reason to go north would be if (a) 158 were jammed and (b) northward traffic would eventually head west on 58 or 460, which have greater capacity than the more direct 158 in any case.
Implementation details on what routes to use and when, would vary depending on the storm diameter, category level, track speed, and track itself. That page is a framework, and the details would be announced thru the media for that particular storm.
Yeah -- that page showing the hurricane "eye" coming in from due east was, I thought, a bit presumptive; considering the storm tracks as of late, they'd more likely come in from SSE that in any other direction (after royally screwing the Outer Banks!). Either way, folks in the Roads would be best off scooting west to higher ground -- since it looks like everything east of the Intracoastal, along with downtown Norfolk, would be inundated with a Class 3 or higher. You guys have got your hurricanes; we've got our fires -- seems like these days, every region bites it one way or the other weather-wise (gee, I wonder why?).
On the porcine note -- a while back I was coming through Richmond from the Outer Banks, and stopped at a BBQ place off I-295 at the US 360 interchange at Mechanicsville; it was a block or two east in a strip mall -- and it was damn good! Can't remember the name of the place (and my receipt has long been flushed) -- if anyone can supply me with the restaurant's name, it would be greatly appreciated (for future reference when I'm in the area).
Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2017, 05:33:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 10:56:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 16, 2017, 10:28:15 PM
P.S. -- after finally looking at the Hampton Roads hurricane plan (which, except for the list of evacuation routes and storm-surge diagrams seems pretty vague), it's pretty obvious that besides US 64 westward from Williamston, NC, anyone trying to move NW out of the Outer Banks and Elizabeth City area would likely just head west on US 158. The sole reason to go north would be if (a) 158 were jammed and (b) northward traffic would eventually head west on 58 or 460, which have greater capacity than the more direct 158 in any case.
Implementation details on what routes to use and when, would vary depending on the storm diameter, category level, track speed, and track itself. That page is a framework, and the details would be announced thru the media for that particular storm.
Yeah -- that page showing the hurricane "eye" coming in from due east was, I thought, a bit presumptive; considering the storm tracks as of late, they'd more likely come in from SSE that in any other direction (after royally screwing the Outer Banks!). Either way, folks in the Roads would be best off scooting west to higher ground -- since it looks like everything east of the Intracoastal, along with downtown Norfolk, would be inundated with a Class 3 or higher. You guys have got your hurricanes; we've got our fires -- seems like these days, every region bites it one way or the other weather-wise (gee, I wonder why?).
On the porcine note -- a while back I was coming through Richmond from the Outer Banks, and stopped at a BBQ place off I-295 at the US 360 interchange at Mechanicsville; it was a block or two east in a strip mall -- and it was damn good! Can't remember the name of the place (and my receipt has long been flushed) -- if anyone can supply me with the restaurant's name, it would be greatly appreciated (for future reference when I'm in the area).
I can't give you the name, but you can go to the intersection on Google maps and retrace your route, that should get you the name.
Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2017, 05:33:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 10:56:56 PM
Implementation details on what routes to use and when, would vary depending on the storm diameter, category level, track speed, and track itself. That page is a framework, and the details would be announced thru the media for that particular storm.
Yeah -- that page showing the hurricane "eye" coming in from due east was, I thought, a bit presumptive; considering the storm tracks as of late, they'd more likely come in from SSE that in any other direction (after royally screwing the Outer Banks!). Either way, folks in the Roads would be best off scooting west to higher ground -- since it looks like everything east of the Intracoastal, along with downtown Norfolk, would be inundated with a Class 3 or higher. You guys have got your hurricanes; we've got our fires -- seems like these days, every region bites it one way or the other weather-wise (gee, I wonder why?).
Sure that graphic was generic, there is great variability in hurricane tracks, and even 4 or 5 days out the NOAA National Hurricane Center official estimates have up to 200 miles of error. And it's not really an error, it is the difficulty of predicting.
Try Googling "strange hurricane tracks", look at the images. Possible hurricane tracks into the SE Virginia could range on almost 180 degrees of the compass. Most common would range somewhere between due north and due west.
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2017, 11:08:42 AM
Sure that graphic was generic, there is great variability in hurricane tracks, and even 4 or 5 days out the NOAA National Hurricane Center official estimates have up to 200 miles of error. And it's not really an error, it is the difficulty of predicting.
It is error. Error is uncertainty. You may be referring to mistakes, which
do indicate that someone did something wrong.
Quote from: 1 on October 17, 2017, 11:24:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2017, 11:08:42 AM
Sure that graphic was generic, there is great variability in hurricane tracks, and even 4 or 5 days out the NOAA National Hurricane Center official estimates have up to 200 miles of error. And it's not really an error, it is the difficulty of predicting.
It is error. Error is uncertainty. You may be referring to mistakes, which do indicate that someone did something wrong.
Well, the dictionary definition of 'error' is --
- a mistake.
synonyms: mistake, inaccuracy, miscalculation, blunder, oversight; fallacy, misconception, delusion; misprint, erratum; informals lip-up, boo-boo, goof
- the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgment.
In any event, the word 'uncertainty' best matches what I was trying to say.
Is this the graphic you're referring to?
I agree, it's an error.
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on April 19, 2013, 09:22:49 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forig01.deviantart.net%2F91a1%2Ff%2F2013%2F109%2F1%2Fa%2Feverything_i_87_touches_is_alanland__by_sanctimoniously-d62aunj.png&hash=d63d8a77bb053b5fd10b3bdd3f3623525141193c)
Everything I-87 touches is Alanland.
/me ducks and runs.
ps – Back-engineering that quote string took a while.
I-87 may very well help a lot of the struggling communities in its path when it comes through.
http://wnct.com/2017/01/03/martin-co-leaders-looks-forward-to-i-87-related-job-growth/
The reality is somewhat different. Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth. Takes far more than that. Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things. An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2017, 04:41:28 PM
The reality is somewhat different. Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth. Takes far more than that. Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things. An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Agreed, but it shouldn't be too difficult to see why so much faith in I-shields persists, especially in economically depressed areas. For example, I-795 has helped Goldsboro some since the interstate came into existence 10 years ago, though it took a few years thanks to the Great Recession. Even the small town of Mount Olive has had development pop up on NC-55 near the US-117 interchange since it's been known for years that I-795 will eventually go through Mount Olive on it's way to I-40. One of the fast food chains (I forget which) had intended on opening next to I-795 in Fremont on NC-222 a few years ago until the NIMBY property owners killed it. People can laugh at fast food joints but for a small town, money is money.
The new US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro has led to development popping up towards it's exits, particularly on Wayne Memorial Drive and NC-581. A convention center is currently being built next to Wayne Community College with a large hotel being planned to be built next to the convention center.
As far as I-87 goes, I seriously doubt it will turn anything around. If there's any development at all, it will most likely be between Rocky Mount and Raleigh and between Elizabeth City and Virginia. It just doesn't have the level of traffic that the I-42 and I-795 corridors have.
While interstates are not an automatic guarantee of economic development, there are cases where it has helped to give some areas a boost, whether big or small.
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2017, 04:41:28 PM
The reality is somewhat different. Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth. Takes far more than that. Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things. An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.
The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%. National population has increased by 112% since 1950.
West Virginia
2015 2010 2000 1990 1950
1,844,128 1,852,996 1,808,344 1,793,477 2,005,552
The bottom three states in terms of economic opportunity are likely New Mexico (48) Mississippi (49) and West Virginia (50) in that order
Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2017, 09:14:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2017, 04:41:28 PM
The reality is somewhat different. Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth. Takes far more than that. Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things. An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.
The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%. National population has increased by 112% since 1950.
West Virginia
2015 2010 2000 1990 1950
1,844,128 1,852,996 1,808,344 1,793,477 2,005,552
Quote from: DJStephens on October 21, 2017, 09:44:01 PM
The bottom three states in terms of economic opportunity are likely New Mexico (48) Mississippi (49) and West Virginia (50) in that order
In 1950, the lion's share of WV population were engaged in two economic activities: resource (principally coal) extraction, and metal production (generally steel up in the northern panhandle). At that time, diversifying into other fields didn't seem necessary. The state's topography and lack of significant agricultural production has always been a factor; there is little breadth of economic activity; and when the steel industry began its decline in the late '50's those regions dominated by that industry suffered economic and eventually population losses correspondingly (just look at the last 7 census figures for Pittsburgh and Birmingham for confirmation of this trend). When coal followed suit about 30 years later, it simply exacerbated the previous dynamics. If one were to run regression analyses on determinants of WV's dire financial straits, road development would hardly make a blip in regards to its contribution -- or lack thereof -- to those circumstances. The only "robust" data would inevitably track the loss of heavy industry and mining. You could build 200 miles of new Interstate and/or full-blown ARC facility within the state -- or none at all -- and except for a marginal spike of cash flow around any construction efforts neither extreme would come close to affecting, much less reversing, the nearly 70-year decline. Citing WV as an example of how new Interstate routes (the last development of which occurred 29 years ago with then-US 48, later I-68) -- or even ARC corridor development -- fail to enhance state economic fortune is both misleading and gratuitous; in that regard, the state is plainly an outlier.
^ I wasn't thinking of West Virginia. I was thinking of areas that already had an Interstate (and major rail) junction and are still dying or decreasing. Meridian, MS is a classic example of this and the first one I was thinking of.
Quote from: sparker on October 21, 2017, 11:59:20 PM
In 1950, the lion's share of WV population were engaged in two economic activities: resource (principally coal) extraction, and metal production (generally steel up in the northern panhandle). At that time, diversifying into other fields didn't seem necessary. The state's topography and lack of significant agricultural production has always been a factor; there is little breadth of economic activity; and when the steel industry began its decline in the late '50's those regions dominated by that industry suffered economic and eventually population losses correspondingly (just look at the last 7 census figures for Pittsburgh and Birmingham for confirmation of this trend). When coal followed suit about 30 years later, it simply exacerbated the previous dynamics. If one were to run regression analyses on determinants of WV's dire financial straits, road development would hardly make a blip in regards to its contribution -- or lack thereof -- to those circumstances. The only "robust" data would inevitably track the loss of heavy industry and mining. You could build 200 miles of new Interstate and/or full-blown ARC facility within the state -- or none at all -- and except for a marginal spike of cash flow around any construction efforts neither extreme would come close to affecting, much less reversing, the nearly 70-year decline. Citing WV as an example of how new Interstate routes (the last development of which occurred 29 years ago with then-US 48, later I-68) -- or even ARC corridor development -- fail to enhance state economic fortune is both misleading and gratuitous; in that regard, the state is plainly an outlier.
Agriculture is a lot more than just growing crops, it includes livestock products and forestal harvesting. Do some research and find that West Virginia did and does produce considerable agricultural output. Around 23,000 farms averaging 157 acres each. The third most-forested state with 12 million acres of forestland.
West Virginia could reinvent itself just like Pittsburgh did after the huge decline in steel and industrial output. A number of small metros that could experience considerable growth and development.
I didn't say "fail to enhance", I just said that there is no guarantee. Sticking a highway in a questionable area with at best one-dimensional justifications (hello!) points to a boondoggle.
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2017, 07:29:39 AM
^ I wasn't thinking of West Virginia. I was thinking of areas that already had an Interstate (and major rail) junction and are still dying or decreasing. Meridian, MS is a classic example of this and the first one I was thinking of.
Sounds like instances in West Virginia.
One must remember that political decisions such as the driving force behind the commissioning of the south I-87 are based on perception rather than any extensive studies regarding the efficacy of the specific route. The backers and their political allies are convinced that the presence of the route will at least contribute to economic gains in the area it traverses -- and it's likely, if you asked them directly, that they're convinced that they are pursuing a noble goal regarding the connection between Raleigh and Hampton Roads. Whether that's self-deception or not is at the present time a moot point; these folks have mobilized all the forces that they needed to mobilize (as in getting AASHTO approval for the designation, "piggybacked" on an existing high-priority corridor) to advance the project.
For better or worse, this is part and parcel of the political process as applied to potential Interstate additions. There are no effective gatekeepers tasked with vetting these routes prior to deployment activities; the process remains within the political realm until construction actually occurs. When there is local/state consensus that a new Interstate corridor is desired, it tends to be advanced to the degree that funding allows; when there isn't broad agreement, the prospect generally doesn't get off the ground. In this instance, NC's a favorable environment, while, categorically VA is not. The NC transportation establishment thinks that it's accomplishing a worthy goal -- and under today's prevalent "system", that by default tends to carry the day.
What you say in general is reasonable. But every highway proposal is different and needs to be judged on its own merits. Any "perception" needs to be evaluated to see if it is accurate or if it is inaccurate or if it is not grounded in reality.
This highway is in a questionable area regarding any significant economic growth, and even that is a one-dimensional justification.
Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2017, 08:44:21 PM
What you say in general is reasonable. But every highway proposal is different and needs to be judged on its own merits. Any "perception" needs to be evaluated to see if it is accurate or if it is inaccurate or if it is not grounded in reality.
This highway is in a questionable area regarding any significant economic growth, and even that is a one-dimensional justification.
When it comes to highways & politics,
a priori concepts such as demonstration of actual need are simply bypassed or just not afforded much in the way of consideration. It's a variation on March and Kingdon's theory of the "garbage can" policy process: a particular action is framed as a "solution" -- in this case, connecting Hampton Roads with Raleigh and the "Research Triangle". Then the search for a salable set of rationales begins: Panamax, the existence of upgradeable facilities, economic viability of the traversed area, possible recreational usage to & from the Outer Banks, and so on and so forth. Essentially it's predicated upon "piling on" of reasons to advance the project -- enough to sway legislators (a process that has been completed regarding "selling" of the corridor concept in general to the actors with decision-making authority; but will continue until funding can be extracted and deployed. In short, this process began back in 1991 with the corridor's inclusion in the ISTEA corridor compendium, likely by either the same actors who envisioned I-87 a quarter-century later or their lineal predecessors. It sat relatively dormant (although it's intriguing that the portion of US 64 completed prior to ISTEA (west of Tarboro) was
not built to Interstate standards, but the portion east from there to Williamston
was! -- and that construction happened after ISTEA. The instigators have been active for quite some time, likely in and out of NCDOT. Sometimes persistence -- and a damn good sales pitch -- can overcome naysayers -- and it's likely that precious few of those were given the time of day by the NC parties involved, who don't see the process as "zero-sum"; they also don't see a "no-build" or "status quo" option as feasible -- like the proverbial shark, they seem to feel as if they must always be moving forward and have a freeway/Interstate project "in the hopper", so to speak -- as if letting up would invite unwanted criticism and possible opposition. But it's the process that tends to prevail these days.
Quote from: sparker on October 24, 2017, 03:10:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2017, 08:44:21 PM
What you say in general is reasonable. But every highway proposal is different and needs to be judged on its own merits. Any "perception" needs to be evaluated to see if it is accurate or if it is inaccurate or if it is not grounded in reality.
This highway is in a questionable area regarding any significant economic growth, and even that is a one-dimensional justification.
In short, this process began back in 1991 with the corridor's inclusion in the ISTEA corridor compendium, likely by either the same actors who envisioned I-87 a quarter-century later or their lineal predecessors. It sat relatively dormant (although it's intriguing that the portion of US 64 completed prior to ISTEA (west of Tarboro) was not built to Interstate standards, but the portion east from there to Williamston was! -- and that construction happened after ISTEA. The instigators have been active for quite some time, likely in and out of NCDOT.
The Raleigh-Norfolk interstate idea goes as far back as at least 1992. According to this article from October 22, 1992, the HRTPO was opposed to using US-17 at the time and they and NCDOT favored using US-13 to cross into Virginia and then use US-58 to connect with I-64. Only VDOT favored using US-17.
http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-10-22/news/9210220164_1_new-route-new-road-study (http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-10-22/news/9210220164_1_new-route-new-road-study)
Compare that to today, where NCDOT favors using US-17 and VDOT is leaning toward VA-168.
ISTEA High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System, don't have to be designed to Interstate standards, or designed to freeway standards, at least most of them aren't. They don't even have to be four lanes, but most of them are.
The US-13 route is no less circuitous than is the US-17 route. Another problem would be how to get thru Suffolk, as the southeast quadrant of the Suffolk Bypass was never built because of the high impacts to the Dismal Swamp. Routing on the existing bypass would add even more circuitous extra mileage.
^ Existing bypass vs. cancelled eastern bypass is about a 4.5 mile difference.
Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 12:07:05 PM
The US-13 route is no less circuitous than is the US-17 route.
Not if you use NC 11. Then you actually get something not longer than I-95 to US 58!
Quote from: index on October 21, 2017, 02:25:13 PM
I-87 may very well help a lot of the struggling communities in its path when it comes through.
http://wnct.com/2017/01/03/martin-co-leaders-looks-forward-to-i-87-related-job-growth/
Quote"Having a blue shield in our county opens up a lot of projects that we didn't have access to in the past," said Semple, "As we respond to active projects for RFIs and those types of requests, it's always the first thing, the first question they ask. Do you have interstate access? And now we can say that."
That's the most telling quote, to me. As petty or small of a reason as it sounds, the reality is that an interstate is what a lot of major employers are looking for when wanting to locate to an area.
Eastern NC is poor as it is, but Northeastern NC is even poorer and is in desperate need of anything that could potentially help create jobs in the area. An interstate will open some doors there that will not be available without it.
That's a lot of public expenditure for what would be a questionable chance (and likely retail/service-related) of development.
Have to agree with Froggie. Although the "build it and they will come" mantra is well-established, it is just a mantra. As we love to point out up here in NY, if interstates meant money, Binghamton should be Monaco instead of the slag heap it is.
Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 06:54:51 AM
ISTEA High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System, don't have to be designed to Interstate standards, or designed to freeway standards, at least most of them aren't. They don't even have to be four lanes, but most of them are.
Only those HPC's that are specifically designated as Interstates, either at the time of the initial corridor designation or within subsequent legislation, are slated for eventual development as an Interstate. Overall, with the 90-some HPC's, many of the improvements have been "spot" projects along the corridor's length to improve efficiency or safety; some of that has involved expansion to a multi-lane facility. The "piggybacking" of Interstates on HPC's began with the NHS act of 1995, when the I-69 cluster as well as the initial iteration of I-73/74 was designated over corridors themselves adopted four years earlier. The practice of simultaneously designating a new HPC along with a corresponding new Interstate began in 2004 when HPC 45 was designated over part of existing HPC 10 in MS & AL -- and the I-22 route number was included in the bill; to date both I-14 and I-42 were instigated in this very manner. In contrast, I-11 was added to the definition of a specific section of HPC 26 and later the entirety of HPC 68 (the former got it from Phoenix to Vegas, the latter from Vegas to I-80). I-41 was an unusual case -- the language of its relevant corridor, HPC 57, was declared a "future Interstate" within its 2005 text -- but minus a number; the number was added in 2014 through the "normal" AASHTO SCOURN action. The southern I-87's designation and numbering process was a bit unusual as it was a two-step process; first, HPC 13's original authorizing language was amended to include "future Interstate" status; and the number was subsequently (ill-)conceived at a 2016 SCOURN meeting after several NCDOT missteps.
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2017, 12:37:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 12:07:05 PM
The US-13 route is no less circuitous than is the US-17 route.
Not if you use NC 11. Then you actually get something not longer than I-95 to US 58!
Not a good route, IMHO. Would serve no towns, nothing but some villages.
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2017, 02:33:11 PM
That's a lot of public expenditure for what would be a questionable chance (and likely retail/service-related) of development.
As I have said, a one-dimensional warrant of questionable outcome.
And there is a very capable 4-lane high speed route already there.
The HPCs are very flexible. We have "Interstate 73" as in a supposedly approved Interstate corridor, yet West Virginia is planning their segment as an at-grade expressway, and Ohio and Michigan have done no serious preliminary planning yet (let alone proceed past that stage). Virginia has a completed location/EIS NEPA process on the 70 miles of I-73 between N.C. and I-81, but the $4 billion cost has held up any construction so far, and the existing US-220 and I-581 is a very capable multilane high speed highway with 4 or more lanes and 30% of the length is freeway standard. I would like to see I-73 built at least between SC I-95 and VA I-81.
Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 07:06:33 PM
The HPCs are very flexible. We have "Interstate 73" as in a supposedly approved Interstate corridor, yet West Virginia is planning their segment as an at-grade expressway, and Ohio and Michigan have done no serious preliminary planning yet (let alone proceed past that stage). Virginia has a completed location/EIS NEPA process on the 70 miles of I-73 between N.C. and I-81, but the $4 billion cost has held up any construction so far, and the existing US-220 and I-581 is a very capable multilane high speed highway with 4 or more lanes and 30% of the length is freeway standard. I would like to see I-73 built at least between SC I-95 and VA I-81.
And barring any NC-like impetus from any states to the north, I-81 is liable to be the I-73 terminus for most of our lifetimes, if it advances past Martinsville. It would be most enlightening to be a fly on the wall inside VDOT when and if either I-73 or I-87 come up for discussion!
Quote from: sparker on October 24, 2017, 09:45:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 07:06:33 PM
The HPCs are very flexible. We have "Interstate 73" as in a supposedly approved Interstate corridor, yet West Virginia is planning their segment as an at-grade expressway, and Ohio and Michigan have done no serious preliminary planning yet (let alone proceed past that stage). Virginia has a completed location/EIS NEPA process on the 70 miles of I-73 between N.C. and I-81, but the $4 billion cost has held up any construction so far, and the existing US-220 and I-581 is a very capable multilane high speed highway with 4 or more lanes and 30% of the length is freeway standard. I would like to see I-73 built at least between SC I-95 and VA I-81.
And barring any NC-like impetus from any states to the north, I-81 is liable to be the I-73 terminus for most of our lifetimes, if it advances past Martinsville. It would be most enlightening to be a fly on the wall inside VDOT when and if either I-73 or I-87 come up for discussion!
Yeah, I agree with you. I-81 is more likely to be I-73's terminus for a long time. Martinsville will get it first, however.
It's signed!
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html
We know (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.msg2213632;topicseen#msg2213632)...
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on October 26, 2017, 09:12:26 AM
It's signed!
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html
I see one of my pictures without the proper credit. :angry:
/me goes to get some popcorn
Pasquotank County is strongly opposed to the idea of re-routing I-87 along the proposed connector route to Currituck and VA-168. They want I-87 to stay on US-17. VDOT has also just begun their study of I-87.
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/27/Where-should-I-87-go-Locals-No-reroute-through-Currituck.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/27/Where-should-I-87-go-Locals-No-reroute-through-Currituck.html)
QuotePasquotank County officials say they're "dead set" against any effort to reroute the proposed Raleigh-to-Norfolk I-87 interstate through Currituck County and connect with Virginia Highway 168.
Commissioner Jeff Dixon said at last week's Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Economic Development Commission meeting that county commissioners want the proposed interstate to follow the current route set out in federal law creating it: U.S. Highway 64 from Raleigh to Williamston and U.S. 17 from Williamston to Chesapeake, Virginia.
Dixon was responding to a recent report that Currituck officials had contacted the N.C. Department of Transportation about the possibility of making a connector route that's been proposed from U.S. 17 to Currituck an actual alternate for I-87.
Pasquotank officials say while they support the proposed U.S. 17-Currituck connector road, they do not support making it the route for I-87 into Virginia.
EDC Director Wayne Harris last week told the Elizabeth City Downtown, Inc. board that having I-87 turn right in northern Camden County and head toward Currituck not only would be contrary to federal legislation but "would be tremendously expensive." He noted that the highway project, already projected to cost $1 billion in North Carolina alone, could see its price tag go up by tens of millions of more dollars. Shifting the interstate through Currituck could also add more time to completing the project, he said.
Harris also said shifting I-87 into Currituck would reduce the effectiveness of the interstate as an evacuation route for federal military and civilian personnel should a hurricane make landfall in the region.
Dixon said he expects Pasquotank commissioners, the EDC board and Elizabeth City City Council would all adopt resolutions asking DOT to stick to the current plan to have I-87 follow U.S. 64 and U.S. 17 into Virginia.
Shane York, a feasibility studies engineer with NCDOT, brought up Currituck's interest in having the U.S. 17-Currituck connector studied as an alternate route for I-87 during a recent meeting with Camden commissioners. The current plan for I-87 has the interstate following U.S. 17 through Camden into Chesapeake.
York said Currituck officials had asked NCDOT to study the cost of rerouting I-87 through Currituck.
He also advised Camden officials that Virginia's transportation secretary had expressed interest in the idea.
NCDOT documents show a proposed alternate route for I-87 starting just north of the Dismal Swamp State Park and extending just below the state line into northern Currituck, which is the location of the county's proposed Moyock Mega-Site commercial and residential project. The alternate route would pass northwest of Moyock and bend just slightly northeast into Virginia, ending at a new interchange with Virginia Highway 168, which feeds into Interstates 64 and 464.
Currituck County Manager Dan Scanlon acknowledged this week that the county asked NCDOT to study the feasibility of aligning I-87 with the proposed U.S. 17-Currituck connector.
He said it's Currituck's belief that the proposed connector road would be built closer to interstate standards than U.S. 17 would be. Also, Currituck believes the connector would be the better route for I-87 if North Carolina's and Virginia's transportation priorities are unaligned, he said.
In an email, Scanlon said county officials have discussed the I-87 project with a number of agencies and officials in Virginia and also reviewed documents outlining future transportation plans in the Hampton Roads area. Currituck's concern, he said, is that the I-87 project seems more of a priority in northeastern North Carolina than it is in Virginia.
"We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization's 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions," Scanlon said.
The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization is the group that includes municipalities, state and federal agencies responsible for the planning of bridges, highways and roads in the Hampton Roads region.
Scanlon said Currituck's inquiry included looking at a city of Chesapeake study called "Forward Chesapeake" that outlines the city's plans through 2026 as well as Chesapeake's long-term master transportation plan. According to Scanlon, neither makes a priority of bringing U.S. 17 through Virginia up to interstate standards.
Scanlon said Currituck's concern is that if the proposed I-87 isn't viewed with the same priority north of the North Carolina-Virginia border as it is south of it, "Where does that leave North Carolina?"
Virginia Department of Transportation Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick recently said Chesapeake officials have asked his agency to work with VDOT experts on opportunities for I-87 in Virginia.
Kilpatrick said VDOT is just beginning its study of I-87 and hasn't discussed possible alignments of the proposed roadway.
Of course they're against a routing that wouldn't bring as much money to them.
Quote
"We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization's 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions," Scanlon said.
IOW, that speaks for itself. Little if any support.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 08:45:08 AM
Quote
"We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization's 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions," Scanlon said.
IOW, that speaks for itself. Little if any support.
If the cited "2040" plan was drafted and published prior to the 2016 re-designation of HPC 13, including VA's segment of US 17, as the I-87 corridor, it obviously wouldn't reflect that particular change of circumstances. As the previous cite states, Chesapeake has asked VDOT for cooperation regarding corridor routing. It
will take time for VDOT to respond, since prior to last year they likely wouldn't have had any contingency plans in place for such a concept. We'll just have to wait and see what transpires -- and what is proffered (and any pending timetable for such -- which would likely be pushed out to about, well,
2040!).
Quote from: sparker on October 29, 2017, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 08:45:08 AM
Quote
"We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization's 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions," Scanlon said.
IOW, that speaks for itself. Little if any support.
If the cited "2040" plan was drafted and published prior to the 2016 re-designation of HPC 13, including VA's segment of US 17, as the I-87 corridor, it obviously wouldn't reflect that particular change of circumstances.
The plan was adopted on July 21, 2016, months after Congress passed the FAST Act.
http://www.hrtpo.org/page/2040-long-range-transportation-plan/ (http://www.hrtpo.org/page/2040-long-range-transportation-plan/)
Quote from: LM117 on October 30, 2017, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 29, 2017, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 08:45:08 AM
Quote
"We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization's 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions," Scanlon said.
IOW, that speaks for itself. Little if any support.
If the cited "2040" plan was drafted and published prior to the 2016 re-designation of HPC 13, including VA's segment of US 17, as the I-87 corridor, it obviously wouldn't reflect that particular change of circumstances.
The plan was adopted on July 21, 2016, months after Congress passed the FAST Act.
http://www.hrtpo.org/page/2040-long-range-transportation-plan/ (http://www.hrtpo.org/page/2040-long-range-transportation-plan/)
Well then -- that indicates that if the I-87 corridor is indeed completed in NC and empties out onto US 17 at the state line -- at least before 2040 -- the ball would be in the court of VA and the city of Chesapeake. Whether they take any action, or just simply choose to sit out the game, remains to be seen. The chances are, though, that it'll be sometime after 2030 before the NC segment is finished -- so VA folks will have a few years to assess whether there's enough additional traffic on US 17 to consider upgrading the corridor (unless the existing plan is internally amended). I think it's fair to say that this is going to be a point of contention for the next few decades.
Given my experience with southeastern Virginia, I doubt VDOT and Chesapeake (really the latter as they have operational/maintenance control over US 17) will do anything unless and until commuter traffic from southern Chesapeake and any bedroom communities between there and E-City becomes enough to warrant improvements. And given precedent with the Steel Bridge, they would likely toll any such improvements.
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
There's a report going around that CSX will not build the Carolina Connector terminal. CSX hasn't confirmed or denied it.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/11/02/CSX-hub-plans-in-question-online-report-says.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/11/02/CSX-hub-plans-in-question-online-report-says.html)
QuoteA magazine that covers the rail industry has reported that CSX isn't moving forward with plans to build the Carolina Connector in Rocky Mount.
CSX officials on Thursday would neither confirm nor deny the report.
A story on the Trains News Wire website said it has learned that the Jacksonville, Fla.-based railroad company will not build the more than $270 million intermodal terminal in Rocky Mount. The report also said CSX aims to end container sorting at its busy intermodal terminal in North Baltimore, Ohio, by Nov. 11.
But CSX spokesman Christopher Smith wouldn't confirm or deny the report in a statement to the Telegram. Smith said CSX has been focused since March on adopting a new operating plan.
"As part of our new plan, we have been conducting a comprehensive and strategic review of the company's intermodal business, including the use and development of existing and planned infrastructure projects," Smith said. "Intermodal will remain an important part of CSX's business and any changes to existing service or to proposed plans will be discussed directly with CSX customers and relevant stakeholders. CSX appreciates the partnership we have developed with the state of North Carolina and we look forward to continuing the dialogue with the state about CCX and our new operating plan."
Construction of the intermodal terminal was set to begin in early 2018, with operations commencing by the end of 2019, officials said.
Construction of the facility would create up to 300 short-term jobs. Once operational, CCX would provide more than 300 direct, long-term jobs with average terminal salaries of more than $60,000 per year.
Over time, CSX expected the intermodal to produce more than 1,500 jobs statewide, while attracting new businesses to the area and pump an estimated $125 million into the state economy.
Here's the magazine article that was referenced:
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/11/02-csx-intermodal-cuts (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/11/02-csx-intermodal-cuts)
Quote from: LM117 on November 02, 2017, 07:46:02 PM
There's a report going around that CSX will not build the Carolina Connector terminal. CSX hasn't confirmed or denied it.
If it's true, then that'll be something of a body-blow to the region. Since CSX brought former CN chief Hunter Harrison out of retirement and made him CEO, they seem to be in retrenchment mode. Their principal source of income, export coal, has seen a precipitous drop in overall transactions (loadings/unloadings) over the past 7-10 years; Harrison was brought in to address the issue; most analysts expected a shift of priorities to container cargo to make up for the lost coal business. CSX, overall, has the best port presence of the southeast rail conglomerates and is in a better overall position to take advantage of any Panamax-related uptick in business; the Rocky Mount "hub" was intended to enhance that prospect by providing a place to assemble "platooned" unit container trains heading for the Northeast and Midwest. But Harrison, who has developed a reputation as a shareholder "darling", seems to be employing a strategy of waiting out the downturn and postponing or even eliminating capital outlay -- and development of a major facility like the Rocky Mount hub would certainly be in jeopardy under that game plan. But except for functioning as an psychological "downer" -- and possibly affecting the rate of industrial development in NE NC simply by an "osmosis" of negativity regarding other regional enterprises, it's highly unlikely that there would be any direct correlation to potential I-87 traffic, as it's unlikely that CSX itself would need to avail themselves of
any road corridor between Norfolk and Rocky Mount, since they already have rail lines or trackage rights between the two points and wouldn't require over-the-road transport; any offloads right at the port going onto trucks would be LTL/"less-than-trainload" shipments intended for locations not conveniently served by the main rail corridors. In other words, there's little chance CSX or the other regional rail conglomerate, NS, would require I-87 -- or any other road corridor for that matter -- directly out of Hampton Roads in order to reload cargo onto rails elsewhere. If the Rocky Mount hub is indeed cancelled, there might be something of a "ripple effect" causing rethinking by businesses that might have considered locating in the region because of the proximity of both major rail facilities
and Interstate corridors. We'll all just have to see how this turn of events plays out.
On another note, it would be ironic if a rail-related downturn such as this would in any way negatively affect the development of an Interstate corridor, since it is widely perceived that the deployment of the Interstate system both negatively affected the state of rail freight transport (effectively truncating individual carloadings) while providing a means to enhance the alternative truck-based transport mode. Here, a negative occurrence in one mode (CSX rail) might just result in a corresponding devaluation and subsequent delay or truncation of the other mode (the I-87 corridor, or at least the timetable for its development).
Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2017, 09:14:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2017, 04:41:28 PM
The reality is somewhat different. Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth. Takes far more than that. Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things. An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.
The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%. National population has increased by 112% since 1950.
West Virginia
2015 2010 2000 1990 1950
1,844,128 1,852,996 1,808,344 1,793,477 2,005,552
Easier to get out of the area.
Z981
I got the new 2018 RN map and it still shows I-495 as the route near Raleigh.
Quote from: jwolfer on November 05, 2017, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2017, 09:14:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2017, 04:41:28 PM
The reality is somewhat different. Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth. Takes far more than that. Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things. An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.
The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%. National population has increased by 112% since 1950.
West Virginia
2015 2010 2000 1990 1950
1,844,128 1,852,996 1,808,344 1,793,477 2,005,552
Easier to get out of the area.
There is an anecdote, about how someone hears a joke told in church on Sunday, and then they laugh about it on Monday. :-/
I just now picked up on what jwolfer was saying ... that all those modern highways make it easier to move out of West Virginia.
Quote from: Beltway on November 11, 2017, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 05, 2017, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2017, 09:14:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2017, 04:41:28 PM
The reality is somewhat different. Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth. Takes far more than that. Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things. An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.
The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%. National population has increased by 112% since 1950.
West Virginia
2015 2010 2000 1990 1950
1,844,128 1,852,996 1,808,344 1,793,477 2,005,552
Easier to get out of the area.
There is an anecdote, about how someone hears a joke told in church on Sunday, and then they laugh about it on Monday. :-/
I just now picked up on what jwolfer was saying ... that all those modern highways make it easier to move out of West Virginia.
However the eastern panhandle of WV is growing as Washington DC exurbs
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on November 11, 2017, 07:30:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 11, 2017, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 05, 2017, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2017, 09:14:14 PM
Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.
The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%. National population has increased by 112% since 1950.
West Virginia
2015 2010 2000 1990 1950
1,844,128 1,852,996 1,808,344 1,793,477 2,005,552
Easier to get out of the area.
There is an anecdote, about how someone hears a joke told in church on Sunday, and then they laugh about it on Monday. :-/
I just now picked up on what jwolfer was saying ... that all those modern highways make it easier to move out of West Virginia.
However the eastern panhandle of WV is growing as Washington DC exurbs
Indeed it is, but not nearly enough to get the state population even near what it was in 1950.
Anyone want to bet we'll see Interstate 87 (and 587 and 42) on the 2019 editions of road atlases?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2017, 03:07:01 PM
Anyone want to bet we'll see Interstate 87 (and 587 and 42) on the 2019 editions of road atlases?
Rand McNally generally doesn't slap shields on Interstate routes that aren't signed; chances are we
will see I-87 on at least the Raleigh-Durham insert and maybe on the main state map. If 587 and 42 aren't signed, they probably won't show up. Not like the old American Maps (pre-Kappa shit) of the early '00's, which had "Future" Interstate shields on such things as the south I-49, the then-finished freeway stretches of I-22, etc.; some of the AAA maps followed suit, but not to the extent of American Map.
Quote from: LM117 on October 21, 2017, 07:34:57 PMAs far as I-87 goes, I seriously doubt it will turn anything around. If there's any development at all, it will most likely be between Rocky Mount and Raleigh and between Elizabeth City and Virginia.
While interstates are not an automatic guarantee of economic development, there are cases where it has helped to give some areas a boost, whether big or small.
Welp, I was wrong.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/12/20/Tire-plants-to-create-800-jobs.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/12/20/Tire-plants-to-create-800-jobs.html)
Here's the official website for the Kingsboro megasite, which includes an aerial view of it's location. Triangle Tire Co. will be it's first major tenant.
https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite (https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite)
Quote from: LM117 on December 23, 2017, 11:08:59 AM
Quote from: LM117 on October 21, 2017, 07:34:57 PMAs far as I-87 goes, I seriously doubt it will turn anything around. If there's any development at all, it will most likely be between Rocky Mount and Raleigh and between Elizabeth City and Virginia.
While interstates are not an automatic guarantee of economic development, there are cases where it has helped to give some areas a boost, whether big or small.
Welp, I was wrong.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/12/20/Tire-plants-to-create-800-jobs.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/12/20/Tire-plants-to-create-800-jobs.html)
Here's the official website for the Kingsboro megasite, which includes an aerial view of it's location. Triangle Tire Co. will be it's first major tenant.
https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite (https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite)
It is already near to I-95 and well connected by the US-64 freeway. I don't see where proposed I-87 should get credit for this.
"The Kingsboro CSX Select Site is strategically located in the heart of the eastern seaboard, just off US Highway 64, and 10 minutes east of Interstate I-95. The capital city, Raleigh, is only one hour to the west."
Oddly, their map shows Future I-495 on that part of US 64, which was never on the table as far as I know...
A separate article from Dec 2016 touting the Kingsboro site did not mention interstate to Norfolk at all. Just that it was on US 64 and 10 minutes from I-95...
Also of note...North Carolina has 4 of these megasties like Kingsboro. None of them besides Kingsboro is on an existing or imminent interstate corridor (US 1 Moncure; US 64 Siler City; US 421 Liberty).
This article (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article190550539.html) suggests that financial incentives offered by the state and a larger amount by Edgecombe County were a major factor in their decision to locate at Kingsboro.
Zero articles/items I could find mention access to the Port in Norfolk including the State of NC and the tire company itself. Pretty much all of them mentioned CSX access, I-95, and being near Raleigh. Only a 2012 article about the site being for sale mentioned that it was equidistant from the ports at Norfolk and Morehead City.
Also count me as a skeptic on any effect from I-87...
I-87 appears to already be signed east of I-540. There is a lone I-87 WEST reassurance marker about 2 exits east of 540. Its getting pretty silly out there with the added I-87 markers next to the old signs that still have I-495 on them too.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 23, 2017, 10:30:17 PM
I-87 appears to already be signed east of I-540. There is a lone I-87 WEST reassurance marker about 2 exits east of 540. Its getting pretty silly out there with the added I-87 markers next to the old signs that still have I-495 on them too.
So they're adding I-87 shields without removing the I-495 ones? Sounds like confusion on the part of NCDOT's sign crew -- or the marching orders they were given. Interesting that it seems the banners will indicate "east" and "west" for I-87; I wonder if the directions will change to N-S north of Williamston when the corridor shifts to US 17? Unless someone has access to signage plans (in reality it might be way too soon for those to have been formulated), we'll probably not know for several years, unless it's planned to sign the Elizabeth City bypass before the rest of the US 17 portion is completed. Got a question for NC & vicinity posters: Were any I-495 shields added to BGS's along us 64 in the last few years, or was that signage limited to freestanding reassurance shields?
Quote from: sparker on December 24, 2017, 01:17:54 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 23, 2017, 10:30:17 PM
I-87 appears to already be signed east of I-540. There is a lone I-87 WEST reassurance marker about 2 exits east of 540. Its getting pretty silly out there with the added I-87 markers next to the old signs that still have I-495 on them too.
So they're adding I-87 shields without removing the I-495 ones? Sounds like confusion on the part of NCDOT's sign crew -- or the marching orders they were given. Interesting that it seems the banners will indicate "east" and "west" for I-87; I wonder if the directions will change to N-S north of Williamston when the corridor shifts to US 17? Unless someone has access to signage plans (in reality it might be way too soon for those to have been formulated), we'll probably not know for several years, unless it's planned to sign the Elizabeth City bypass before the rest of the US 17 portion is completed. Got a question for NC & vicinity posters: Were any I-495 shields added to BGS's along us 64 in the last few years, or was that signage limited to freestanding reassurance shields?
I-495 shields were added to BGSs on I-440 and I-540 for the Knightdale Bypass in 2015:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut87317c.JPG&hash=cecc9e56ae245299cd11e2d33d219012854e82b7)
As for I-87 'West' if it is truly marked as that then it's probably an error, other I-87 reassurance markers seen on US 64/264 are marked North/South:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87kb917ap1w.jpg&hash=0b4a5606afb70169395020eaa5cf5858085b9228)
What overload on the control destinations. I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.
Anyway, Map Source INC have Future I-87 listed pretty good all the way along both US 64 and US 17 up to the VA Border.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 25, 2017, 09:37:55 PM
What overload on the control destinations. I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.
They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)
Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.
If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.
Quote from: LM117 on December 26, 2017, 04:51:41 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 25, 2017, 09:37:55 PM
What overload on the control destinations. I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.
They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)
Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.
If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.
As long as "VA" is specified along with a control city in the other state, that would be appropriate. Also
"Hampton Roads, VA" might be an alternative, as it encompasses all the major cities in that metro area.
Quote from: bob7374 on December 24, 2017, 10:38:23 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 24, 2017, 01:17:54 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 23, 2017, 10:30:17 PM
I-87 appears to already be signed east of I-540. There is a lone I-87 WEST reassurance marker about 2 exits east of 540. Its getting pretty silly out there with the added I-87 markers next to the old signs that still have I-495 on them too.
So they're adding I-87 shields without removing the I-495 ones? Sounds like confusion on the part of NCDOT's sign crew -- or the marching orders they were given. Interesting that it seems the banners will indicate "east" and "west" for I-87; I wonder if the directions will change to N-S north of Williamston when the corridor shifts to US 17? Unless someone has access to signage plans (in reality it might be way too soon for those to have been formulated), we'll probably not know for several years, unless it's planned to sign the Elizabeth City bypass before the rest of the US 17 portion is completed. Got a question for NC & vicinity posters: Were any I-495 shields added to BGS's along us 64 in the last few years, or was that signage limited to freestanding reassurance shields?
I-495 shields were added to BGSs on I-440 and I-540 for the Knightdale Bypass in 2015:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut87317c.JPG&hash=cecc9e56ae245299cd11e2d33d219012854e82b7)
As for I-87 'West' if it is truly marked as that then it's probably an error, other I-87 reassurance markers seen on US 64/264 are marked North/South:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87kb917ap1w.jpg&hash=0b4a5606afb70169395020eaa5cf5858085b9228)
Didn't see any West banners for I-87 when i was running errands today. The stand alone sign reads I-87 South and is between the Wendell Falls Parkway and Smithfield Road.
Quote from: LM117 on December 26, 2017, 04:51:41 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 25, 2017, 09:37:55 PM
What overload on the control destinations. I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.
They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)
Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.
If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.
Norfolk is years away. Heck we do not even know if VDOT will build I-87 in their state at this point. At most it will be a NC thing.
The three destination thing is too much. Though I got used to it in NJ growing up, secondary signs would work will keeping maybe Rocky Mount and Wilson as primary for this. Or nix Wilson and just use Rocky Mount and Greenville.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 26, 2017, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 26, 2017, 04:51:41 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 25, 2017, 09:37:55 PM
What overload on the control destinations. I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.
They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)
Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.
If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.
Norfolk is years away. Heck we do not even know if VDOT will build I-87 in their state at this point. At most it will be a NC thing.
The three destination thing is too much. Though I got used to it in NJ growing up, secondary signs would work will keeping maybe Rocky Mount and Wilson as primary for this. Or nix Wilson and just use Rocky Mount and Greenville.
EB (I-87 NB) past the US 264 split; just do a dual-control-city series: Rocky Mount/Tarboro, then Tarboro/Williamston, followed by Williamston/Elizabeth City, Elizabeth City/Hampton Roads (or one of the individual cities within), and simply Hampton Roads to the state line. To address the long-distance city/metro area, place mileage BGS's including the final destination along the freeway on a regular basis.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 26, 2017, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 26, 2017, 04:51:41 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 25, 2017, 09:37:55 PM
What overload on the control destinations. I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.
They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)
Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.
If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.
Norfolk is years away. Heck we do not even know if VDOT will build I-87 in their state at this point. At most it will be a NC thing.
That didn't stop NCDOT from using Martinsville as a control city for I-73 northbound in Greensboro and Virginia has no intention of building I-73 at all.
On the other hand, VDOT apparently showed a slight interest in I-87, considering that they began their study of I-87 and has been in talks with NCDOT over I-87's routing in Chesapeake. VA Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Lane even threw his two cents in and showed interest in using VA-168. Hampton Roads has more political muscle and their own tax authority. Southwest VA has neither of those advantages when it comes to I-73 (or anything else in general for that matter). That being said, I agree that I-87 is many years away and there are more important issues to deal with at the moment.
I don't think the control cities should be changed right now, but once US-64 is upgraded and I-87 shields pop up at least as far as Williamston and the heavy work begins on US-17, then change it.
QuoteHampton Roads has more political muscle and their own tax authority.
Don't look for much from this, especially when they need to figure out a way to pay for HRBT widening and either the 3rd Crossing or MMBT widening...
^Not to mention the widening of the High Rise Bridge & approaches. Yeah, that area already has enough on its plate as it is.
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2017, 05:07:55 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 26, 2017, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 26, 2017, 04:51:41 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 25, 2017, 09:37:55 PM
What overload on the control destinations. I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.
They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)
Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.
If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.
Norfolk is years away. Heck we do not even know if VDOT will build I-87 in their state at this point. At most it will be a NC thing.
That didn't stop NCDOT from using Martinsville as a control city for I-73 northbound in Greensboro and Virginia has no intention of building I-73 at all.
On the other hand, VDOT apparently showed a slight interest in I-87, considering that they began their study of I-87 and has been in talks with NCDOT over I-87's routing in Chesapeake. VA Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Lane even threw his two cents in and showed interest in using VA-168. Hampton Roads has more political muscle and their own tax authority. Southwest VA has neither of those advantages when it comes to I-73 (or anything else in general for that matter). That being said, I agree that I-87 is many years away and there are more important issues to deal with at the moment.
I don't think the control cities should be changed right now, but once US-64 is upgraded and I-87 shields pop up at least as far as Williamston and the heavy work begins on US-17, then change it.
NCDOT put up Martinsville on I-73 northbound as their control city going northbound because it make sense. I-73 North currently (temporarily) ends at NC 68/US 220 north partial interchange and taking US 220 North takes you to Martinsville. It is signed like that to divert long distance traffic OFF US 220 (along I-40, US 29, Wendover, Battleground) through Greensboro.
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.
I-87 in Virginia might as well get built before I-73 does in Virginia.
It's entirely possible that the NC-bound I-87 corridor will functionally end at the NC/VA state line and empty out onto US 17, which currently is a combination expressway and (recently) upgraded freeway -- and this situation may last years if not decades until the complications endemic to VA's commonwealth status are resolved in order to plan and deploy I-87 up to I-64. At that point we'll all see if the NC segment can supply sufficient traffic -- especially of the commercial variety -- to warrant and prompt completion of the corridor in VA.
Quote from: Strider on December 27, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.
That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.
I do agree that I-87 will be built before I-73 reaches Martinsville.
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2017, 07:18:14 PM
Quote from: Strider on December 27, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.
That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.
How many times do I have to mention that while I-73 between NC and I-81 has a completed NEPA EIS process, it is a $4 billion project and the existing US-220 is a very capable 4-lane highway? That sum exceeds any project yet built in the state.
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2017, 07:18:14 PM
Quote from: Strider on December 27, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.
That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.
I do agree that I-87 will be built before I-73 reaches Martinsville.
Nah. the GA is a joke. It is very sad that one part of the state is being ignored while attending others. favorism stinks.
Quote from: Strider on December 27, 2017, 10:40:12 PM
Nah. the GA is a joke. It is very sad that one part of the state is being ignored while attending others. favorism stinks.
Vomit stinks, and it curves, and it makes a sickening sound when it hits the floor.
Quote from: Strider on December 27, 2017, 10:40:12 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2017, 07:18:14 PM
Quote from: Strider on December 27, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.
That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.
I do agree that I-87 will be built before I-73 reaches Martinsville.
Nah. the GA is a joke. It is very sad that one part of the state is being ignored while attending others. favorism stinks.
The billion $ projects US 121 and US 58 say hello...
And the occasional reminder that NoVA and Hampton Roads collect well over $100M per year in taxes that VDOT must give right back to them outside of their normal district allocations. Plus some jurisdictions like Fairfax County also put up substantial sums of their own money for transportation projects as well.
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2017, 08:42:15 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2017, 07:18:14 PM
Quote from: Strider on December 27, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.
That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.
How many times do I have to mention that while I-73 between NC and I-81 has a completed NEPA EIS process, it is a $4 billion project and the existing US-220 is a very capable 4-lane highway? That sum exceeds any project yet built in the state.
That doesn't mean that it can't be broken down and built into sections as funding is available the way NC does their projects. Look at I-73 in NC. The entire corridor wasn't funded all at once (some still isn't) and yet they still made significant progress on it. Why VA acts like it has to either build the entire stretch all at once or not turn dirt period is beyond me.
As for US-220, it may be capable between Martinsville and Rocky Mount but I disagree that it's capable north of there, especially once you get closer to Roanoke.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 28, 2017, 06:54:51 AM
The billion $ projects US 121 say hello...
Complete waste of money, IMO. I can think of several projects in SW VA that the money is better spent on. Widening I-81, finishing the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, I-73, actually building a US-460/N. Main St interchange in Blacksburg instead of taking the cheap way out...
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 07:09:27 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 28, 2017, 06:54:51 AM
The billion $ projects US 121 say hello...
Complete waste of money, IMO. I can think of several projects in SW VA that the money is better spent on. Widening I-81, finishing the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, I-73, actually building a US-460/N. Main St interchange in Blacksburg instead of taking the cheap way out...
I agree with this. VDOT's own study says West Virginia primarily benefits from this project. VA 83 between Pound and Haysi has already been improved. Some spot improvements between Haysi and Grundy are warranted.
A better gauge to see if SW Virginia is really getting the shaft might be if they really rebuild US 58 between Damascus and Volney (or at the very least widen VA 16 from Volney to Marion as a cheap-out).
I did find a study from 1988-95 that actually looked at how districts did (wish the data continued to the modern day). The question they answered was how much money did the districts get back relative to what they put in. Only one district got way more back than they put in (Bristol). The districts that did worst were Salem, Lynchburg, and Richmond.
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 06:58:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2017, 08:42:15 PM
How many times do I have to mention that while I-73 between NC and I-81 has a completed NEPA EIS process, it is a $4 billion project and the existing US-220 is a very capable 4-lane highway? That sum exceeds any project yet built in the state.
That doesn't mean that it can't be broken down and built into sections as funding is available the way NC does their projects. Look at I-73 in NC. The entire corridor wasn't funded all at once (some still isn't) and yet they still made significant progress on it. Why VA acts like it has to either build the entire stretch all at once or not turn dirt period is beyond me.
As for US-220, it may be capable between Martinsville and Rocky Mount but I disagree that it's capable north of there, especially once you get closer to Roanoke.
It is capable enough that it greatly reduces the incentive to build a new Interstate highway to bypass it (let alone one that would cost $4 billion). The 2 mile section just south of the end of the Southwest Expressway is the only section that is really in need at this point. Based on the route and its interchanges, I can't see more than 3 or 4 logical segments of independent utility, so that is still billion dollar chunks.
NC had long distances where US-220 was only 2 lanes wide, including the NC-68 bypass that was the preferred route for US-220 traffic to bypass Greensboro, that only now in 2017 is finally being bypassed with a 4-lane highway.
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 06:58:58 AM
That doesn't mean that it can't be broken down and built into sections as funding is available the way NC does their projects.
As for US-220, it may be capable between Martinsville and Rocky Mount but I disagree that it's capable north of there, especially once you get closer to Roanoke.
What sections would/could be built? The proposed route for I-73 has pretty much been a new interstate on a new right of way (which is where a lot of the cost -- and resistance -- comes from). There are several parts of U.S. 220 that could be improved to reduce some bad curves and some grades but that wouldn't create an interstate. Fixing the section between Rocky Mount and Roanoke is a whole 'nother mess that will be expensive to fix.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Quote from: VTGoose on December 28, 2017, 11:14:27 AM
What sections would/could be built? The proposed route for I-73 has pretty much been a new interstate on a new right of way (which is where a lot of the cost -- and resistance -- comes from). There are several parts of U.S. 220 that could be improved to reduce some bad curves and some grades but that wouldn't create an interstate. Fixing the section between Rocky Mount and Roanoke is a whole 'nother mess that will be expensive to fix.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Provision of full paved shoulders, long left-turn and right-turn lanes, access management improvements, and selected spot-reconstructions, are some of the basic but helpful improvements that could be performed, and for maybe 1 or 2% of the cost of the new Interstate highway.
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 07:09:27 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 28, 2017, 06:54:51 AM
The billion $ projects US 121 say hello...
Complete waste of money, IMO. I can think of several projects in SW VA that the money is better spent on. Widening I-81, finishing the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, I-73, actually building a US-460/N. Main St interchange in Blacksburg instead of taking the cheap way out...
I agree with this.
Quote from: Beltway on December 28, 2017, 12:47:36 PM
Provision of full paved shoulders, long left-turn and right-turn lanes, access management improvements, and selected spot-reconstructions, are some of the basic but helpful improvements that could be performed, and for maybe 1 or 2% of the cost of the new Interstate highway.
OK, no problem with those projects, which would improve the existing highway in its present location. But that won't satisfy the crowd that wants a full-on interstate between I-81 and North Carolina and I don't see that happening even in my (adult) kids' lifetimes.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 11:33:55 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 28, 2017, 12:47:36 PM
Provision of full paved shoulders, long left-turn and right-turn lanes, access management improvements, and selected spot-reconstructions, are some of the basic but helpful improvements that could be performed, and for maybe 1 or 2% of the cost of the new Interstate highway.
OK, no problem with those projects, which would improve the existing highway in its present location. But that won't satisfy the crowd that wants a full-on interstate between I-81 and North Carolina and I don't see that happening even in my (adult) kids' lifetimes.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Conceptually I would definitely like to see an Interstate highway built in that corridor, and see the corridor completed south to I-95 in South Carolina as has been studied.
AADTs on US-220 south of Martinsville are in the 12,000 range, between there and Rocky Mount in the 16,000 range, and between there and the Blue Ridge Parkway in the 24,000 range, and truck percentages in the 10+% range. Those are hefty numbers compared to rural predecessors to the original Interstate system. The traffic engineering warrants for an Interstate highway exist today.
If rural Interstate construction was still in the $10 million per mile range like it was not that many years ago, I would be strongly advocating building it. Nevertheless, there is that $4 billion figure that I am sure some of the posters are tired of seeing me post...
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 29, 2017, 06:38:40 PM
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.
Exactly. Split into small segments. It is much cheaper that way. NC line to US 58 is the best segment to start.
Either way, I-87 is going to get built before I-73 ever does because of course it connects to Hampton Roads.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 29, 2017, 06:38:40 PM
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.
OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?
Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:42:38 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 29, 2017, 06:38:40 PM
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.
OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?
Temporary tie-ins would be an issue anywhere on the corridor, for cost as well as feasibility. A Ridgeway bypass segment would cost probably $60 to $80 million and for no real independent benefit.
The one independent segment that would make sense to build soon would be a 2 or 3 mile extension from the south end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Highway). It would pass thru and address a congested area and would be expensive.
Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:42:38 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 29, 2017, 06:38:40 PM
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.
OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?
Arkansas has a somewhat similar problem with the I-49 Bella Vista Bypass in the Ozarks. The difference is, they really want to build the road. So they've been hacking at it a little bit at a time, building segments initially with 2 lanes. It's taking a pretty long time, but eventually they'll get it done.
Quote from: Beltway on December 29, 2017, 10:40:03 PM
The one independent segment that would make sense to build soon would be a 2 or 3 mile extension from the south end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Highway). It would pass thru and address a congested area and would be expensive.
Agreed.. matter of fact, IF Virginia ever decides to build its segment, it should be built starting at the northern end going southward.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 30, 2017, 06:54:38 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:42:38 PM
OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?
Arkansas has a somewhat similar problem with the I-49 Bella Vista Bypass in the Ozarks. The difference is, they really want to build the road. So they've been hacking at it a little bit at a time, building segments initially with 2 lanes. It's taking a pretty long time, but eventually they'll get it done.
They built part of it in the original Interstate system as I-540, relatively little so far as I-49, about 180 miles between Texarkana and Fort Smith that hasn't even been touched and the existing road is only 2 lanes. When... 2100?
Quote from: plain on December 30, 2017, 08:59:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 29, 2017, 10:40:03 PM
The one independent segment that would make sense to build soon would be a 2 or 3 mile extension from the south end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Highway). It would pass thru and address a congested area and would be expensive.
Agreed.. matter of fact, IF Virginia ever decides to build its segment, it should be built starting at the northern end going southward.
Actually the 'northern end' would be the upgrade of I-581 and the Southwest Expressway, probably to 8 lanes. But I will grant that the segment I outlined above has standalone utility.
Segments going south while they don't have to be built at exactly the same time, there does need to be a flow of southward progression in a reasonable timeframe, say all contracts let within 3 to 5 years.
Such as when I-77 was built in Virginia, the segments north of I-81 opened from 1972 to 1975; the segments south of I-81 opened from 1977 to 1979. Of course it is very hard to compare to today, as the average construction cost per mile of I-77 was $3 million back then.
Forgot to add, NCDOT finally finished adding exit numbers along US-64 (particularly on the Nashville bypass) from I-440 to at least I-95 (if not beyond). Seems kinda pointless though since they will eventually be changed to I-87's mileposts vs. US-64's.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2018, 09:12:05 PM
Forgot to add, NCDOT finally finished adding exit numbers along US-64 (particularly on the Nashville bypass) from I-440 to at least I-95 (if not beyond). Seems kinda pointless though since they will eventually be changed to I-87's mileposts vs. US-64's.
Curious that NCDOT did not do what they did with US 74 east of I-95. There they put up I-74 mileposts and placed I-74 exit numbers for the US 74 exits in anticipation of future construction. Guess the US 64 contract was designed before the I-87 designation and no one considered delaying the project even though the numbers will be changed in the future.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2018, 09:12:05 PM
Forgot to add, NCDOT finally finished adding exit numbers along US-64 (particularly on the Nashville bypass) from I-440 to at least I-95 (if not beyond). Seems kinda pointless though since they will eventually be changed to I-87's mileposts vs. US-64's.
Traditionally, yes Interstate exits should not use a US route that is with them, but keep in mind I-17 in AZ does not use its own exit numbers. I-515 in NV, which uses US 95's mileage. Then I-70 in IL that continues another interstate's mileage scheme.
Even if I-87 uses US 64's scheme that adds hundreds of miles to it, it really does not matter as long as its consistent to the end.
Being that said I would not petition for it as it should be zero from I-40 as I assume its concurrent with I-440 unlike MS not making I-22 concurrent with I-269 despite TN having no interest in building their part of the Memphis to Birmingham freeway. But if NCDOT did not care about formalities as Arizona or Nevada do, for us we should not worry too much about it other than just simply pointing the fact out as discussion.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 12:20:29 PM
Then I-70 in IL that continues another interstate's mileage scheme.
What is unusual about I-70 in Illinois? The exit numbers seem perfectly normal, looking at the Wikipedia article on I-70 in Illinois.
Not really as they continue I-270's scheme not I-55's as originally (before the Stan Musial Bridge that is) used I-55's zero point on the Poplar Street Bridge. There is a 2 mile difference, not seen unless you look close enough.
The point was you cannot be precise, so if NCDOT wants to use US 64's numbering than that would not be so strange.
The likely outcome will be that I-87 will have its own exit numbers starting with "0" at the I-40/440 junction and continuing on until the nascent Interstate turns north onto US 17 at Williamston. US 64's numbering will "phantom" over I-87 for the length of the multiplex and resume east of US 17, so the exit numbers on the freeway section west of Columbia won't need to be changed. I can't imaging NCDOT wanting to have I-87 change its exit number pattern once on US 17, so it is likely that the whole corridor will have a unique exit list. But I'd also bet that any exit number change on US 64 won't be implemented until most if not all of the US 17 portion of I-87 is in place, even if the US 64 E-W segment is co-signed as I-87 prior to the entire corridor's completion.
Yes it will have its own exit numbers. But that was not the point! I just stated that exit numbers do not have to conform to the standards.
Someone said that the exit numbers needed to be changed again once all is in place. I just said its not really that necessary, not saying that they will not change them.
You bring up an interesting point, as far as US 17 I imagine that it will not change them to match its mileposts for sure, but if there ever was someone who thought along the line that the people in Arizona was thinking when numbering I-17 (which I would hope is rare) there is no law stopping them.
I am not in favor of them using US 64 or US 17's mileage, but in favor of all using the actual interstate including I-17.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 06:05:49 PM
Yes it will have its own exit numbers. But that was not the point! I just stated that exit numbers do not have to conform to the standards.
Someone said that the exit numbers needed to be changed again once all is in place. I just said its not really that necessary, not saying that they will not change them.
You bring up an interesting point, as far as US 17 I imagine that it will not change them to match its mileposts for sure, but if there ever was someone who thought along the line that the people in Arizona was thinking when numbering I-17 (which I would hope is rare) there is no law stopping them.
I am not in favor of them using US 64 or US 17's mileage, but in favor of all using the actual interstate including I-17.
Arizona's milepost/exit system is indeed weird; why it's persisted for so many decades is beyond me (I guess there haven't been too many complaints about it -- and you
can calculate mileage using the supplied numbers). And the only Interstate involved within that system is I-17; all the rest are calculated from the point where they enter the state. And you're right; it seems like the mileage system in AZ is a matter of administrative law formulated within AZDOT bylaws -- maybe I'm mistaken, but it doesn't seem like an issue normally tackled by the state legislature but rather worked out in the bowels of the state highway department.
But to the matter at hand: it's probable that NC will retain the existing mileposts and exit numbering along the I-87 corridor until such time as the corridor is substantially completed. It's likely that since the US 64 freeway has been in place for a couple of decades or more that businesses along the way make written or media advertising reference to the closest exit; it would probably be prudent to leave matters as they are as long as possible -- and trot out the revised exit numbers as part of the "completion rituals" of the full corridor.
I think that would be fair to wait till all is done. Right now the businesses are using the existing ones and that could create a confusion situation.
Yes AZ is weird, but also NY has the same situation with I-87 and three schemes, but no one complains about it as most New Yorkers refer to I-87 by the names, in which in their minds its three separate roads so the numbers do not seem redundant.
Yes, I-87 is not hard to calculate and so is I-515 in Vegas. Plus I-69 in IN north of Indy as it starts with an even 200 and goes north from there. Of course, INDOT is not accurate with the mileage from the original southern terminus being close to 200 miles from Kentucky either, but I am sure that no one ever would calculate though the discrepancy except maybe a few members here, with one who might already have written INDOT and gave them a lesson in FHWA standards, but really its good as long as you have a system that works and close to accurate numbers.
Heck the Garden State Parkway even with its exit numbers being a mile or so off (i.e MP 136 at Exit 135, MP 124 being south of Exit 123, and MP 140 at Exit 138 on the CR 509 overpass) there its not that big a deal either. However, until the US 17 upgrade gets completed the current US 64 part is fine IMO for a good reference in exits.
The thing is, there were no exit numbers on US-64 until the past year in many places.
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2018, 05:45:55 PM
The likely outcome will be that I-87 will have its own exit numbers starting with "0" at the I-40/440 junction and continuing on until the nascent Interstate turns north onto US 17 at Williamston. US 64's numbering will "phantom" over I-87 for the length of the multiplex and resume east of US 17, so the exit numbers on the freeway section west of Columbia won't need to be changed. I can't imaging NCDOT wanting to have I-87 change its exit number pattern once on US 17, so it is likely that the whole corridor will have a unique exit list. But I'd also bet that any exit number change on US 64 won't be implemented until most if not all of the US 17 portion of I-87 is in place, even if the US 64 E-W segment is co-signed as I-87 prior to the entire corridor's completion.
NCDOT is already planning to change the exit numbers along US 64/264 to I-87 numbers when the new overhead signage is put up sometime this year. Here are signage plans for the Business 64 exit in Wendell at the east end of the Knightdale Bypass:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87signplanbus64ncdot917.JPG&hash=982e41f078adfdd9d547a5870b5d891d46e9b760)
Other sign plans can be found on my Future I-87 in NC website:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 14, 2018, 11:01:58 AM
The thing is, there were no exit numbers on US-64 until the past year in many places.
Is that not a thing in NC for many US route freeways?
I have seen event the part west of US 1 use exit numbers back in 2003, so I assumed it was a new thing. I even saw other US routes in other parts use them too. I cannot remember where and what route had them, but I assumed that NC was giving all US route freeways exit numbers.
They are a bit inconsistent with exit numbers on US routes. North of Raleigh they have 1 or 2 exit numbers signed on the US-1 Wake Forest bypass despite it not even being a freeway there, but the Henderson bypass has no exit numbers. They recently signed a few right at I-85 as part of the reconstruction project there.
Oh yes now I remember US 1 started using them between Sanford and Carey post freeway widening in the early naughts when the super 2 was made into a standard divided freeway.
Probably that new freeway stretch added north of Southern Pines is signed with numbers I imagine as well.
The latest on the I-87 study of US-17.
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2018/01/29/New-I-87-route-option-studied.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2018/01/29/New-I-87-route-option-studied.html)
QuoteThe N.C. Department of Transportation is studying a new route for proposed Interstate 87 north of Hertford that wouldn't require the property condemnation needed for the highway's current route.
The current route for the proposed I-87 through Perquimans County upgrades the existing U.S. Highway 17 to interstate standards. A second route, however, would create a new road that would start near U.S. 17's intersection with Wiggins Road in Winfall and continue north to the area near Victory Baptist Church across the Perquimans County line in Pasquotank County.
One reason the alternate route for I-87 might be attractive is that it would bypass existing homes and businesses on that section of U.S. 17. Upgrading the existing road to interstate standards would likely require demolition of existing homes and businesses and creation of new access roads.
"If you stayed on the current U.S. 17 there would have to be service roads and some of those would go right through people's property," said Angela Welsh, director of the Area Regional Planning Organization based in Hertford.
The DOT study that includes the new route for I-87 north of Hertford looked at an 80-mile stretch of the highway through seven counties. The proposed interstate begins in Williamston in Martin County and continues north through Camden County to the Virginia line.
Welsh cautioned that planning for the proposed I-87 is still in the early stages.
"A feasibility study doesn't determine much, because it's just a study," she said. "This is just a preliminary document."
Welsh said there will be plenty of time for public comment on the plan once further studies are completed. The final draft of the study is expected to be complete early next year.
Both county officials in Perquimans and town officials in Hertford have already said they don't want I-87 to include a bypass of Hertford. Because of that, DOT didn't include a bypass of the town in the feasibility study.
Two I-87 projects in Perquimans are proceeding in the planning stage. One creates an interchange on U.S. 17 at New Hope Road. DOT currently has right-of-way acquisition for the project slated to start in 2023 with construction to follow in 2025.
Another project would build either an interchange or flyover at Wynne Fork Road. Welsh said right-of-way purchases for that project are slated to start in 2024 with construction to follow in 2026.
Welsh said she is unaware of any future public meetings on the I-87 project for now. More may be known in January 2019 when the state releases the final draft of the plan, which will also include a timeline for when funding for the project might be available, she said.
If and when the project moves further along, a "merger team" including both state and federal officials will be created. It's at that point that environmental studies will be conducted and historic preservation issues will be addressed.
"There is going to be a lot of going back and forth once the merger team is created," Welsh said.
For more information on the I-87 plan, visit https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us17-feasibility-study/.
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 29, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.
Zero chance.
Quote from: LM117 on January 29, 2018, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 29, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.
Zero chance.
I'll be something of a contrarian here and say that if I-87 reaches the state line
as a continuous route from Raleigh what VADot will do is sign the new "freeway" segment south of the I-64/264/US 17 junction as I-87, and simply put either green signs of a TBD size along the remainder stating "future I-87 corridor" or simply shield assemblies stating "TO I-87" with a forward trailblazer arrow. But they'll have a couple of decades left before they decide exactly how to proceed. But I don't anticipate any prioritization of further improvements to US 17 in Chesapeake unless to satisfy local demand.
Quote from: sparker on January 30, 2018, 05:54:16 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 29, 2018, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 29, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.
Zero chance.
I'll be something of a contrarian here and say that if I-87 reaches the state line as a continuous route from Raleigh what VADot will do is sign the new "freeway" segment south of the I-64/264/US 17 junction as I-87, and simply put either green signs of a TBD size along the remainder stating "future I-87 corridor" or simply shield assemblies stating "TO I-87" with a forward trailblazer arrow. But they'll have a couple of decades left before they decide exactly how to proceed. But I don't anticipate any prioritization of further improvements to US 17 in Chesapeake unless to satisfy local demand.
It will be 2040 before this needs to be addressed.
I'll turn 56 in 2040. Maybe "future me" can keep tabs on how Virginia deals with Interstate 87.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 30, 2018, 06:36:48 PM
It will be 2040 before this needs to be addressed.
This road won't be needed even in 2040, IMHO.
Quote from: sparker on January 30, 2018, 05:54:16 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 29, 2018, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 29, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.
Zero chance.
I'll be something of a contrarian here and say that if I-87 reaches the state line as a continuous route from Raleigh what VADot will do is sign the new "freeway" segment south of the I-64/264/US 17 junction as I-87, and simply put either green signs of a TBD size along the remainder stating "future I-87 corridor" or simply shield assemblies stating "TO I-87" with a forward trailblazer arrow. But they'll have a couple of decades left before they decide exactly how to proceed. But I don't anticipate any prioritization of further improvements to US 17 in Chesapeake unless to satisfy local demand.
I spoke with someone in Chesapeake last month and they have mentioned awareness of the new interstate. Also, the city of Chesapeake has requested VDOT to begin an US 17 Interstate / Interchange Feasibility Study, which would identify where interchanges could be located with the new highway, and how to address upgrading the road to full interstate. It will obviously be a decade or more before any construction occurs, but the feasibility study has begun, which will take a couple of years to complete I assume.
Here's the letter with information about the study - http://files.constantcontact.com/2d09bb17be/38bd3e8d-7938-4453-ac21-829bfcf0f481.pdf (http://files.constantcontact.com/2d09bb17be/38bd3e8d-7938-4453-ac21-829bfcf0f481.pdf)
Hopefully by 2040 or sooner, the road is complete through both Virginia and North Carolina. And hopefully Virginia is willing to set a 70mph speed limit on south 17 in Chesapeake, knowing their history with low speeds on interstates in Hampton Roads.
Tidbit from a column written by Larry Lombardi, economic director of Currituck County, pushing for using the proposed Currituck connector route to link with VA-168.
https://pilotonline.com/inside-business/news/columns/article_e4433ea9-96f7-57e6-a3ef-f342f52c34f3.html (https://pilotonline.com/inside-business/news/columns/article_e4433ea9-96f7-57e6-a3ef-f342f52c34f3.html)
QuoteThe port set a new record for volume in 2017 by handling more than 2.84 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units). Roughly 150,000 of those containers moved to and/or from North Carolina.
With that much product rolling back and forth from Hampton Roads across the border, it's more urgent than ever that key regional transportation projects move forward. At the top of the list is Interstate 87, a high-speed, unobstructed route between Norfolk and the Raleigh/Research Triangle area of North Carolina.
Interstate 87 will be a big step toward solving our "cul-de-sac" conundrum. Traffic flow has never been ideal in Hampton Roads, but we can't just sit by and let infrastructure and geography limitations undo the port's progress. The more efficiently cargo can move from ship to destination, the faster our entire region can benefit.
We need I-87 to become a priority for both Virginia and North Carolina, and we need it to come through Currituck County.
One proposal from the North Carolina Department of Transportation has I-87 following U.S. 17 through Edenton and Hertford before joining Dominion Boulevard into Chesapeake.
We prefer an alternate proposed route that creates an east-west connector through northern Currituck. The new road would link with Virginia 168 before it becomes the Chesapeake Expressway (a connector to Interstates 64 and 464). Our belief is the new alternate would be built closer to interstate standards than U.S. 17, and it would provide a closer route to the various port facilities.
While the reality of any finished road may be decades away, the time for discussion is now.
Not only will I-87 create a valuable connection from Hampton Roads to Raleigh, but the route will open up a world of opportunity for new companies and businesses that want to connect with the Port of Virginia — and the rest of the world.
Quote from: LM117 on February 18, 2018, 10:07:29 AM
Tidbit from a column written by Larry Lombardi, economic director of Currituck County, pushing for using the proposed Currituck connector route to link with VA-168.
[...]
Not only will I-87 create a valuable connection from Hampton Roads to Raleigh, but the route will open up a world of opportunity for new companies and businesses that want to connect with the Port of Virginia — and the rest of the world.
Baloney, any way you slice it.
It would be much longer distance and time than the existing Interstate and 4-lane connection.
Quote from: Beltway on February 18, 2018, 03:03:09 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 18, 2018, 10:07:29 AM
Tidbit from a column written by Larry Lombardi, economic director of Currituck County, pushing for using the proposed Currituck connector route to link with VA-168.
[...]
Not only will I-87 create a valuable connection from Hampton Roads to Raleigh, but the route will open up a world of opportunity for new companies and businesses that want to connect with the Port of Virginia — and the rest of the world.
Baloney, any way you slice it.
It would be much longer distance and time than the existing Interstate and 4-lane connection.
I sliced it and it was tasty.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 18, 2018, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 18, 2018, 03:03:09 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 18, 2018, 10:07:29 AM
Tidbit from a column written by Larry Lombardi, economic director of Currituck County, pushing for using the proposed Currituck connector route to link with VA-168.
[...]
Not only will I-87 create a valuable connection from Hampton Roads to Raleigh, but the route will open up a world of opportunity for new companies and businesses that want to connect with the Port of Virginia — and the rest of the world.
Baloney, any way you slice it.
It would be much longer distance and time than the existing Interstate and 4-lane connection.
I sliced it and it was tasty.
It's still baloney, no matter how you dice it or slice it.
I really just don't see any reason to spend millions of dollars on a road that is already there, and capable of handling the amount of traffic it sees. This all seems like a lot of effort to be able to say "take I-87 north" instead of "take US 64 east to US 17 north". That money be much better spent elsewhere, because general public doesn't give a shit if any given highway is an interstate or not.
^ For whatever reason, North Carolina businesses do give a s*** whether it's an Interstate or not...
Quote from: fillup420 on February 18, 2018, 10:20:51 PM
I really just don't see any reason to spend millions of dollars on a road that is already there, and capable of handling the amount of traffic it sees. This all seems like a lot of effort to be able to say "take I-87 north" instead of "take US 64 east to US 17 north". That money be much better spent elsewhere, because general public doesn't give a shit if any given highway is an interstate or not.
The road can definitely handle growing traffic volumes for years to come, but the point of it is to take traffic from Raleigh and I-95 to Norfolk. The quickest way to do that now though is to take I-95 to U.S. 58 in Emporia then to Norfolk, but the point of the upgrades for I-87 is to make U.S. 64/17 faster, moving more people onto this quicker, and high speed route. Yes, it still may be slightly more mileage than 95/58, but factor in a 70-75mph speed, and it's quicker. Also, traffic will mainly be in North Carolina traveling from Raleigh to Norfolk as opposed to Virginia, so more money for North Carolina towns/businesses located near the route, and more business growth.
Quoteand more business growth.
This is exactly why the North Carolina politicians are trying to sell this route, even though the aforementioned 95/58 route would A) be shorter* and B) be cheaper to upgrade** with a higher return-on-investment. Except between Holland and Suffolk and (IMO) right at 95, improvements to 58 can largely be done along the existing 4-lane. The US 17 corridor would require significantly more work with a lot more wetland impact...ESPECIALLY if the Currituck County brainiacs want to get this new-alignment corridor between US 17 and NC/VA 168, though upgrading US 13/17 from Williamston to Windsor would also have a lot of wetland impact because of the Roanoke River and its vicinity.
* - I-95/US 64 to I-64/I-464/US 17 is approximately 134 miles via I-95/US 58, 150 miles via US 64/US 17, and approximately 151 miles via US 64/US 17/Currituck Connector idea/VA 168.
** - Upgrading US 58 would require approximately 42 miles of improvements, plus 2 interchanges on an existing limited-access segment. Upgrading US 17 would require about 66 miles of improvements. Existing controlled-access bypasses (Courtland, Franklin, and Suffolk for 58, Windsor, Edenton, and E-City for 17) were not included in these totals. In fairness, the 95/58 corridor would probably require widening of I-95, but many would argue that 95 needs widening anyway, even if I-87 followed the 64/17 corridor.
QuoteThe quickest way to do that now though is to take I-95 to U.S. 58 in Emporia then to Norfolk, but the point of the upgrades for I-87 is to make U.S. 64/17 faster, moving more people onto this quicker, and high speed route.
Even if the 64/17 corridor were upgraded to be 70 MPH throughout, it would be all of 90 seconds faster than the 95/58 corridor is TODAY without improvements.
In short, even with a 70 MPH I-87, it would effectively be no faster than the 95/58 corridor. 90 seconds is basically a rounding error given the distance involved.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 19, 2018, 12:17:27 PM
The road can definitely handle growing traffic volumes for years to come, but the point of it is to take traffic from Raleigh and I-95 to Norfolk. The quickest way to do that now though is to take I-95 to U.S. 58 in Emporia then to Norfolk, but the point of the upgrades for I-87 is to make U.S. 64/17 faster, moving more people onto this quicker, and high speed route. Yes, it still may be slightly more mileage than 95/58, but factor in a 70-75mph speed, and it's quicker. Also, traffic will mainly be in North Carolina traveling from Raleigh to Norfolk as opposed to Virginia, so more money for North Carolina towns/businesses located near the route, and more business growth.
"I-87" would be about 25 miles longer, the new route would take considerably more time, and for large trucks with their low fuel mileage there would be a substantial financial penalty as well. I-95 has a 70 mph limit. I cannot see any end-to-end trip justification for this idea.
I-95 and US-58 are not going to stand still, at minimum there will be a number of major improvements over the next 20 years.
I heard the announcer on North Carolina Public Radio talking about the expansion of NC 540 and they said "it would connect to I-495 near Knightdale". Clearly, someone hasn't yet gotten onto the I-87 bandwagon.
Quote from: Jordanes on February 19, 2018, 06:10:48 PM
I heard the announcer on North Carolina Public Radio talking about the expansion of NC 540 and they said "it would connect to I-495 near Knightdale". Clearly, someone hasn't yet gotten onto the I-87 bandwagon.
In the announcer's defense, he/she was reading from the latest NCDOT press release which refers to the Knightdale Bypass as US 64/264 (I-495). A month ago when the first press release about the upcoming 540 public meetings came up with the same outdated information I sent an e-mail to the address listed on their Compete 540 website saying shouldn't the site and the press release be updated to use the new I-87 designation instead of I-495. Got a standard response e-mail thanking me for my suggestions, but as expected no changes. Hope someone at the meeting will bring this up, maybe someone will be embarrassed enough to work to get the site information changed.
What it boils down to is this: NC is ready & willing to build their 90+% of the corridor's length, while VA by all indications has expressed a profound disinterest in any improvements to a Raleigh-Hampton Roads corridor. As observers, we can hash out all the pros and cons of building any Interstate-grade route between those two locations ad nauseum, but, like so many projects in so many venues, it comes down to simple political will -- NC has it and is willing to direct it to projects such as this, while VA in general does not. Whether VA's reluctance is warranted, given the almost perpetual needs of NoVA's suburb-serving network and its corresponding drain on resources, is a matter that will be germane to any attempt to plan, much less deploy, long-distance facilities elsewhere in the state (e.g., I-73). But it was likely apparent 27 years ago when the first ISTEA-related High Priority Corridors were formulated, including #13, which is now the nascent I-87. Not a direct connection by any means, but one that eventually proved politically feasible merely by its NC dominance. Over the years, pretty much most of us on this forum formulated, even within our own minds, a US 58-based Interstate connector from Hampton Roads to I-95 & I-85 to give that metro area an efficient outlet to corridors heading south (essentially filling in an obvious gap); it was the most logical and reasonable route to utilize for that purpose. Nevertheless, anyone familiar with VA political idiom likely consigned such a corridor to their own "fictional" compendium, realizing that the likelihood of it actually being done were slim & none. NC became the beneficiary of that equation; they had their own row to hoe -- US 64 east of Raleigh -- and were more than willing to incorporate that within the overall "corridor to Norfolk" plan, since it had been built as a freeway (albeit not to Interstate criteria) out as far as Tarboro. Hardly by coincidence, the section of 64 from Tarboro to US 17 does meet Interstate standards, being built after 1991, when HPC 13 was adopted. I-87 isn't just a newfangled and fanciful way to divert traffic and possibly business to northeast NC; this plan has been fomenting within NC circles for a long while; they just "pounced" in 2016, coincidentally (maybe) at the quarter-century anniversary of the corridor's inception.
As long as publicly-funded transportation facilities and the policy issues surrounding them remain a political football, things (shit?) like this will invariably happen. Ironically, VA's long-noted commonwealth status may actually be the "saving grace" of that state's short portion of this corridor; from the cites earlier in the thread, Chesapeake may actually be more interested in upgrading their portion than the state itself; it'll be interesting (and possibly amusing) to watch this play out.
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2018, 12:11:19 AM
What it boils down to is this: NC is ready & willing to build their 90+% of the corridor's length, while VA by all indications has expressed a profound disinterest in any improvements to a Raleigh-Hampton Roads corridor.
NC can go pound sand. VA US-17 south of I-64 is already a modern 4-lane limited access highway, the northern part built to full freeway standards. They just spent $430 million on the Dominion Boulevard project. The corridor should be adequate for 20 to 30 years into the future, with perhaps the northernmost two intersections replaced with interchanges sometime in the future.
VA has billions of dollars of very complex projects programmed in the Hampton Roads area, the focus is there for that region.
Quote from: sparkerWhether VA's reluctance is warranted, given the almost perpetual needs of NoVA's suburb-serving network and its corresponding drain on resources
I wouldn't call it a drain on resources when NoVA generates almost half of the state's revenue. It's also not a "drain on resources" when there's more tax generation in that region than the state subsequently spends there.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I-42 and I-795 are the two most important future interstate corridors in eastern NC (if not the entire state) right now. Everything else in that region is secondary. Until those two corridors are finished, I-87 shouldn't be anywhere near a priority.
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2018, 12:11:19 AM
What it boils down to is this: NC is ready & willing to build their 90+% of the corridor's length, while VA by all indications has expressed a profound disinterest in any improvements to a Raleigh-Hampton Roads corridor. As observers, we can hash out all the pros and cons of building any Interstate-grade route between those two locations ad nauseum, but, like so many projects in so many venues, it comes down to simple political will -- NC has it and is willing to direct it to projects such as this, while VA in general does not. Whether VA's reluctance is warranted, given the almost perpetual needs of NoVA's suburb-serving network and its corresponding drain on resources, is a matter that will be germane to any attempt to plan, much less deploy, long-distance facilities elsewhere in the state (e.g., I-73). But it was likely apparent 27 years ago when the first ISTEA-related High Priority Corridors were formulated, including #13, which is now the nascent I-87. Not a direct connection by any means, but one that eventually proved politically feasible merely by its NC dominance. Over the years, pretty much most of us on this forum formulated, even within our own minds, a US 58-based Interstate connector from Hampton Roads to I-95 & I-85 to give that metro area an efficient outlet to corridors heading south (essentially filling in an obvious gap); it was the most logical and reasonable route to utilize for that purpose. Nevertheless, anyone familiar with VA political idiom likely consigned such a corridor to their own "fictional" compendium, realizing that the likelihood of it actually being done were slim & none. NC became the beneficiary of that equation; they had their own row to hoe -- US 64 east of Raleigh -- and were more than willing to incorporate that within the overall "corridor to Norfolk" plan, since it had been built as a freeway (albeit not to Interstate criteria) out as far as Tarboro. Hardly by coincidence, the section of 64 from Tarboro to US 17 does meet Interstate standards, being built after 1991, when HPC 13 was adopted. I-87 isn't just a newfangled and fanciful way to divert traffic and possibly business to northeast NC; this plan has been fomenting within NC circles for a long while; they just "pounced" in 2016, coincidentally (maybe) at the quarter-century anniversary of the corridor's inception.
As long as publicly-funded transportation facilities and the policy issues surrounding them remain a political football, things (shit?) like this will invariably happen. Ironically, VA's long-noted commonwealth status may actually be the "saving grace" of that state's short portion of this corridor; from the cites earlier in the thread, Chesapeake may actually be more interested in upgrading their portion than the state itself; it'll be interesting (and possibly amusing) to watch this play out.
Pretty much. Everyone agrees I-95/US 58 is the shorter/better route, but Virginia will not make that a full interstate route and North Carolina knows that people program their GPS devices to follow all interstates, so it's a no brainer North Carolina would push for their route thanks to the void Virginia left.
The portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.
Not sure why folks like are so upset about this. There will still be plenty of people using the US 58 route. Do people really care that it's a closer route? Will it really be faster when people have to sit on the side of the road in Emporia for an extra 20 or 30 minutes waiting on a cop that pulled them over for going 50 in a 45? Are they going to want to deal with having to go all the way back to Emporia to pay the ticket?
Sure, it's faster. You may save 15+ minutes going the current way, even when I-87 is 70mph once completed. But there's also an "ease" factor that travelers must consider as well. There are plenty of stoplights between Emporia and Chesapeake. Once completed, people will care that they can go 70+mph uninterrupted to their destination on I-87 vs. 87/95/US58 combo. Add in the cops on the route, and I-87 looks like a better option, regardless of mileage.
People do like simplicity. Not much simpler than "Take I-87 North all the way to Norfolk" or "Take I-87 South all the way to Raleigh".
Quote from: Beltway on February 20, 2018, 12:34:24 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2018, 12:11:19 AM
What it boils down to is this: NC is ready & willing to build their 90+% of the corridor's length, while VA by all indications has expressed a profound disinterest in any improvements to a Raleigh-Hampton Roads corridor.
NC can go pound sand. VA US-17 south of I-64 is already a modern 4-lane limited access highway, the northern part built to full freeway standards. They just spent $430 million on the Dominion Boulevard project. The corridor should be adequate for 20 to 30 years into the future, with perhaps the northernmost two intersections replaced with interchanges sometime in the future.
VA has billions of dollars of very complex projects programmed in the Hampton Roads area, the focus is there for that region.
Quote from: froggie on February 20, 2018, 07:30:47 AM
Quote from: sparkerWhether VA's reluctance is warranted, given the almost perpetual needs of NoVA's suburb-serving network and its corresponding drain on resources
I wouldn't call it a drain on resources when NoVA generates almost half of the state's revenue. It's also not a "drain on resources" when there's more tax generation in that region than the state subsequently spends there.
Further upthread I speculated that VA's action, once the NC segment of I-87 was essentially complete, would be to sign the freeway portion of US 17 and post the remainder as "TO I-87" and leave it at that for at least the near term; I'm sticking by that assessment. Whether Chesapeake itself elects to take the lead toward upgrading that remainder has yet TBD; it's certainly too early to engage in speculation as to which way they'll go some 20-30 years down the line.
And I wasn't intending to sound perjorative regarding NoVA's characterization as a "drain" on resources -- given the fact that the region is one of the two largest metros in the state its needs, of course, will naturally be given some level of priority. My main concern is that such prioritization may become internalized to the point of consistently excluding consideration of projects in the rest of the state; from all accounts this is an ongoing issue in that state. And one can't deny that the region is perpetually in the national spotlight simply as an adjunct to D.C.; while Adam's likely correct as to their proportional contribution to the tax base, they're also the proverbial "squeaky wheel" -- with an outsize propensity to "squeak" loudly and clearly when issues emerge (an outgrowth of the proximity to a power center). Their status as a "test bed" for road-related measures regarding congestion (e.g., the various strategies employed along I-66) just serves to magnify that spotlight; the area tends be a project "magnet" as a consequence. For better or worse, that has tended to leave much of the rest of VA "high & dry" regarding funding; whether that's an issue that will continue or escalate will likely depend upon the direction taken in Richmond in the decades to come.
Quote from: michealbond on February 20, 2018, 03:24:15 PM
The portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.
Myth. Have driven it numerous times over the last 20 years and rarely see a single cop.
It is 25 miles shorter, and there are not very many signals, and the 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will soon be widened to 6 lanes with access management. The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, will be upgraded to full freeway standards long before the NC boondoggle is completed (if it ever is).
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2018, 04:17:41 PM
Further upthread I speculated that VA's action, once the NC segment of I-87 was essentially complete, would be to sign the freeway portion of US 17 and post the remainder as "TO I-87" and leave it at that for at least the near term; I'm sticking by that assessment. Whether Chesapeake itself elects to take the lead toward upgrading that remainder has yet TBD; it's certainly too early to engage in speculation as to which way they'll go some 20-30 years down the line.
Official plans don't go 20-30 years into the future. STIPs are usually in the 5 to 6 year range. Long term needs assessments such as 20 years are general and are unconstrained in funding.
Who knows if any of us will still be alive 20-30 years from now? Anything can happen.
Quote from: WashuOtakuPretty much. Everyone agrees I-95/US 58 is the shorter/better route, but Virginia will not make that a full interstate route and North Carolina knows that people program their GPS devices to follow all interstates, so it's a no brainer North Carolina would push for their route thanks to the void Virginia left.
However, they also have a tendency to program their GPS to follow the shortest or fastest routes. Which would still keep them in Virginia.
Quote from: michaelbondThe portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.
This keeps coming up on this forum. And while Emporia in particular has a reputation, my own considerable experience with the corridor is that it's more hype than reality.
Sure there's some cops, but no more than I've seen elsewhere (including North Carolina).
Quote from: sparkerAnd I wasn't intending to sound perjorative regarding NoVA's characterization as a "drain" on resources -- given the fact that the region is one of the two largest metros in the state its needs, of course, will naturally be given some level of priority. My main concern is that such prioritization may become internalized to the point of consistently excluding consideration of projects in the rest of the state; from all accounts this is an ongoing issue in that state. And one can't deny that the region is perpetually in the national spotlight simply as an adjunct to D.C.; while Adam's likely correct as to their proportional contribution to the tax base, they're also the proverbial "squeaky wheel" -- with an outsize propensity to "squeak" loudly and clearly when issues emerge (an outgrowth of the proximity to a power center). Their status as a "test bed" for road-related measures regarding congestion (e.g., the various strategies employed along I-66) just serves to magnify that spotlight; the area tends be a project "magnet" as a consequence. For better or worse, that has tended to leave much of the rest of VA "high & dry" regarding funding; whether that's an issue that will continue or escalate will likely depend upon the direction taken in Richmond in the decades to come.
Most of the projects in the "magnet" that you are referring to are not significant-cost projects, or have a large contingent of local or private funding involved. This is *NOT* leaving the rest of the state "high and dry". That the Northern Virginia (and, more recently Hampton Roads) jurisdictions are putting local funding (not easy to acquire given the state's use of the Dillon Rule) into projects on the primary system which is ultimately VDOT's responsibility is a strong indicator that the two main urban regions in the state are just as "high and dry" as the rest of the state.
Quote from: Beltway on February 20, 2018, 04:23:43 PM
Quote from: michealbond on February 20, 2018, 03:24:15 PM
The portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.
Myth. Have driven it numerous times over the last 20 years and rarely see a single cop.
Your experiences with US-58 doesn't make anyone else's less valid or a "myth" . I drove US-58 between Emporia and I-64 as recently as last October and it was heavily patrolled. Emporia itself wasn't as bad as it used to be, but the rest of the corridor between Emporia and Suffolk was a different story.
Quote from: froggie on February 20, 2018, 05:32:01 PM
Quote from: michaelbondThe portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.
This keeps coming up on this forum. And while Emporia in particular has a reputation, my own considerable experience with the corridor is that it's more hype than reality.
Sure there's some cops, but no more than I've seen elsewhere (including North Carolina).
Including Maryland. At least they no longer do "step out" traffic stops on the inner lane of Interstate highways, following one of their officers getting run over and killed while doing that.
I agree, some roadgeeks seem to glom onto certain issues, some of which are misconceptions and/or erroneous, and they keep streaming it.
Quote from: Beltway on February 20, 2018, 09:03:31 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 20, 2018, 05:32:01 PM
Quote from: michaelbondThe portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.
This keeps coming up on this forum. And while Emporia in particular has a reputation, my own considerable experience with the corridor is that it's more hype than reality.
Sure there's some cops, but no more than I've seen elsewhere (including North Carolina).
Including Maryland. At least they no longer do "step out" traffic stops on the inner lane of Interstate highways, following one of their officers getting run over and killed while doing that.
I agree, some roadgeeks seem to glom onto certain issues, some of which are misconceptions and/or erroneous, and they keep streaming it.
I've seen far more patrolling in North Carolina in recent years than Virginia.
Whether or not if Virginia/Chesapeake even builds there portion, I created a map showing generally what a freeway might look like from Cedar Rd to North Carolina along U.S. 17, if they ever come to do their portion of I-87.
In my view of it (on the map), interchanges would be located at Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, George Washington Hwy, and Scenic Pkwy. Access roads would also have to be created at certain points, especially between Scenic Pkwy and G.W. Hwy. All of this can be seen on the map.
Map - https://goo.gl/D5sqNg (https://goo.gl/D5sqNg)
This is just my viewpoint of it ever went through Virginia, nothing is official, and things will probably end up being different.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2018, 08:55:28 PM
Whether or not if Virginia/Chesapeake even builds there portion, I created a map showing generally what a freeway might look like from Cedar Rd to North Carolina along U.S. 17, if they ever come to do their portion of I-87.
In my view of it (on the map), interchanges would be located at Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, George Washington Hwy, and Scenic Pkwy. Access roads would also have to be created at certain points, especially between Scenic Pkwy and G.W. Hwy. All of this can be seen on the map.
Map - https://goo.gl/D5sqNg (https://goo.gl/D5sqNg)
This is just my viewpoint of it ever went through Virginia, nothing is official, and things will probably end up being different.
The rancher that owns about 2,000 acres on the southern part of US-17, got the CTB to grant three breaks in the limited access right-of-way line and fence, so that he can get his farm equipment across the highway. These would need to be eliminated with some scheme that could provide him decent grade separated access across the highway.
You can see them on Google Maps satellite view -- Number One Ditch, Number Two Ditch, and Number Three Ditch.
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 09:07:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2018, 08:55:28 PM
Whether or not if Virginia/Chesapeake even builds there portion, I created a map showing generally what a freeway might look like from Cedar Rd to North Carolina along U.S. 17, if they ever come to do their portion of I-87.
In my view of it (on the map), interchanges would be located at Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, George Washington Hwy, and Scenic Pkwy. Access roads would also have to be created at certain points, especially between Scenic Pkwy and G.W. Hwy. All of this can be seen on the map.
Map - https://goo.gl/D5sqNg (https://goo.gl/D5sqNg)
This is just my viewpoint of it ever went through Virginia, nothing is official, and things will probably end up being different.
The rancher that owns about 2,000 acres on the southern part of US-17, got the CTB to grant three breaks in the limited access right-of-way line and fence, so that he can get his farm equipment across the highway. These would need to be eliminated with some scheme that could provide him decent grade separated access across the highway.
You can see them on Google Maps satellite view -- Number One Ditch, Number Two Ditch, and Number Three Ditch.
Wouldn't an overpass at Ballahack, then to the trail, connect the east side to Number Three Ditch on the west side? Or would a new separation be needed near the state line
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2018, 09:16:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 09:07:54 PM
The rancher that owns about 2,000 acres on the southern part of US-17, got the CTB to grant three breaks in the limited access right-of-way line and fence, so that he can get his farm equipment across the highway. These would need to be eliminated with some scheme that could provide him decent grade separated access across the highway.
You can see them on Google Maps satellite view -- Number One Ditch, Number Two Ditch, and Number Three Ditch.
Wouldn't an overpass at Ballahack, then to the trail, connect the east side to Number Three Ditch on the west side? Or would a new separation be needed near the state line
That would have to be worked out with the landowner. Presumably there was a good reason why he was granted three private at-grade intersections. AADT would be very low, maybe 10 or less, but they are at-grade intersections nonetheless.
No myth about the Emporia area. It has the reputation for a reason. I've seen many cars pulled over on my many travels to and from Raleigh. I also lived in Northeastern NC for the first 20 years of my life and traveled to the Suffolk/Chesapeake/Norfolk/VA beach area countless times as well as the Emporia/Petersburg area on my way to Richmond or DC.
My overall experience has been exactly as the reputation suggests. I learned a long time ago not to speed at all through that entire area.
I honestly don't understand why people (Beltway in particular) are annoyed about this, especially when VA's portion (if it ever gets built) would likely be less than 30 miles of roadway.
I stand by my statement. It will be "easier" for people to drive I-87 between Raleigh & Norfolk on a 70mph non stop interstate than the 87/95/US 58 combo. Yes, there are lots of people that will always want the fastest route, no matter what. But simplicity for many people will beat out the time factor.
Quote from: michealbond on February 22, 2018, 01:07:21 PM
No myth about the Emporia area. It has the reputation for a reason. I've seen many cars pulled over on my many travels to and from Raleigh. I also lived in Northeastern NC for the first 20 years of my life and traveled to the Suffolk/Chesapeake/Norfolk/VA beach area countless times as well as the Emporia/Petersburg area on my way to Richmond or DC.
My overall experience has been exactly as the reputation suggests. I learned a long time ago not to speed at all through that entire area.
I honestly don't understand why people (Beltway in particular) are annoyed about this, especially when VA's portion (if it ever gets built) would likely be less than 30 miles of roadway.
Because some roadgeeks like to spin a lot of baloney about this. Because it IS annoying. Because I have driven it countless times myself.
Quote from: michealbond on February 22, 2018, 01:07:21 PM
I stand by my statement. It will be "easier" for people to drive I-87 between Raleigh & Norfolk on a 70mph non stop interstate than the 87/95/US 58 combo. Yes, there are lots of people that will always want the fastest route, no matter what. But simplicity for many people will beat out the time factor.
Baloney, any way you slice it.
It will NOT be easier to drive 25 extra miles, it will not be 'simpler', when about half of the existing route is 70 mph, and when a variety of major improvements are planned on that route. Especially for large trucks with their fuel costs. I have said this repeatedly, and will say it again if/when someone posts something contrary.
"I-87" is a boondoggle.
The routing of I-87 goes way out of the way and will look very, very stupid on a map. 25 miles may not be much if you're driving 1000 miles, but if you're only going 150, it's certainly a lot. Also keep in mind that truckers are MANDATED to take the shortest route in number of miles, because that's how they get paid. The trucks will not be taking I-87.
Quote from: michealbond on February 22, 2018, 01:07:21 PM
No myth about the Emporia area. It has the reputation for a reason. I've seen many cars pulled over on my many travels to and from Raleigh. I also lived in Northeastern NC for the first 20 years of my life and traveled to the Suffolk/Chesapeake/Norfolk/VA beach area countless times as well as the Emporia/Petersburg area on my way to Richmond or DC.
My overall experience has been exactly as the reputation suggests. I learned a long time ago not to speed at all through that entire area.
I honestly don't understand why people (Beltway in particular) are annoyed about this, especially when VA's portion (if it ever gets built) would likely be less than 30 miles of roadway.
Because there are just as many of us who have gone through that area countless times without ever seeing a car pulled over.
From the I-95/US 64 interchange to I-64/US 17, US 17 is only 15 miles longer, not 25. Even though it may be slightly longer, it will have a full 70mph speed limit, making it more easier for people, like michealbond pointed out. Not to mention, there are plenty of interstates in the US that compete with a US route that may be slightly shorter, but the traffic still uses the interstate. Also, having a full interstate allows trucks and all traffic a generally safer route. No crossroads, driveways, etc. to worry about, just unobstructed freeway. Set your cruise to 70+mph, and you go all the way, whereas 95 requires getting off at Emporia, slowing through there, then to 60mph, then slowing through Suffolk. Also, traffic would avoid the High Rise Bridge corridor with this route, coming into Hampton Roads, which has numerous delays during peak hours.
Plus, what are the chances VDOT would be willing to divert money from other much needed projects to improve US 58 to interstate any time soon? Look at how US 460 went. NCDOT is in a much better position to upgrade US 17 than VDOT is to do 58, comparing their history with VDOT's. US 17 is a lot easier to upgrade, most of it is limited-access already, only a few interchanges needed here and there. Yes, US 58 is a major corridor that may work for now, but traffic can be heavy on 58, and there is a major need for an interstate from Norfolk to I-95 south and Raleigh, like there is I-64 from Norfolk to I-95 North and Richmond, especially as these areas continue growing. Economically, it ties Norfolk into the southern interstate system, and will also bring more traffic through northeast NC. It also opens up the opportunity to allow traffic to use US 13 going north, while that would definitely be longer (40-50 miles longer), it would allow them to avoid DC traffic, which we all know how that can be.
The distance from US 64 at I-95 to US 17 at the VA border, as the crow flies, is 92.36 miles. The distance along NCDOT's proposed route is approximately 125 miles... so actually, we've underestimated it, since the difference is closer to 30-35 miles. For destinations only about 90 miles apart. That's a 33% increase. Frankly, I wouldn't go with either US 58 or NCDOT's route. I'd build a direct new terrain route.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 20, 2018, 05:04:41 PM
Who knows if any of us will still be alive 20-30 years from now? Anything can happen.
Literally ANYthing is possible with Trump in the White House. :bigass:
Quote from: vdeane on February 22, 2018, 07:36:40 PM
The distance from US 64 at I-95 to US 17 at the VA border, as the crow flies, is 92.36 miles. The distance along NCDOT's proposed route is approximately 125 miles... so actually, we've underestimated it, since the difference is closer to 30-35 miles. For destinations only about 90 miles apart. That's a 33% increase. Frankly, I wouldn't go with either US 58 or NCDOT's route. I'd build a direct new terrain route.
Raleigh-Norfolk on Google Maps it is 184 miles current versus 208 miles proposed.
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.
"I-87" is not going to compete with the current route; by the earliest time they could build it (20+ years?) there will be a number of major upgrades built along those parts of I-95 and US-58. If someone wants to suggest an Interstate route between Raleigh and Norfolk then they need to wait until they can come with something better than this foolishness.
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 22, 2018, 07:36:40 PM
The distance from US 64 at I-95 to US 17 at the VA border, as the crow flies, is 92.36 miles. The distance along NCDOT's proposed route is approximately 125 miles... so actually, we've underestimated it, since the difference is closer to 30-35 miles. For destinations only about 90 miles apart. That's a 33% increase. Frankly, I wouldn't go with either US 58 or NCDOT's route. I'd build a direct new terrain route.
Raleigh-Norfolk on Google Maps it is 184 miles current versus 208 miles proposed.
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.
"I-87" is not going to compete with the current route; by the earliest time they could build it (20+ years?) there will be a number of major upgrades built along those parts of I-95 and US-58. If someone wants to suggest an Interstate route between Raleigh and Norfolk then they need to wait until they can come with something better than this foolishness.
Quote from: vdeane on February 22, 2018, 07:36:40 PM
The distance from US 64 at I-95 to US 17 at the VA border, as the crow flies, is 92.36 miles. The distance along NCDOT's proposed route is approximately 125 miles... so actually, we've underestimated it, since the difference is closer to 30-35 miles. For destinations only about 90 miles apart. That's a 33% increase. Frankly, I wouldn't go with either US 58 or NCDOT's route. I'd build a direct new terrain route.
Looking at it from Google Maps, US 64 at I-95 to I-64 at US 17 via 58 is 135 miles, whereas 17 is 150, which is a 15 mile difference. As for upgrades on either route, NCDOT has already funded a project to upgrade US 17 from VA to E-City bypass to interstate standards. Construction will start in approx 8-9 years. They also have funded a few interchanges and an overpass in Hertford, which will be constructed in about 5-7 years. Also, they are expressing interest in wanting to build a new location route between Hertford and Elizabeth City in the near future. And as time passes, I'm sure more plans & funding to upgrade US 17 down to Edenton, then a new location to Windsor, and eventually all the way down to Williamston will happen, especially as the NCDOT's new STIP comes out in a couple of years, where more will get funded. VDOT on the other hand, currently has no plans to upgrade US 58. Yes, a feasibility study for the route across the entire state is currently being studied, but based on prior studies from VDOT, it tends to take at least 15-20 years to bring actual construction to it, if money can even be acquired. The biggest project here in the past 20 years was 168, which ended up being tolled. No other long distance, big highways have happened since. Also, with the whole money situation, it brings even more wait until anything is done to 58. Once I-87 construction begins also, they'll most likely use that as an excuse not to majorly upgrade US 58 in the near future. They couldn't even receive $400 million to upgrade a small section of US 460, imagine how a whole US 58 new location or upgrade would cost. NCDOT is more willing to divert funds to I-87, as they have no current extreme-costing projects occurring, like VDOT does with High Rise and HRBT, which will be the main focus for the next 10 years.
I'll say once again, there are interstates that are slightly longer in distance than the opposing US/state route, but it ends up still being the fastest, the most convenient, and the most traveled on, which is what I feel I-87 will become when it's complete, despite the extra 10-15 miles.
As for building a new terrain route, it would've been interesting if they upgraded NC 11 to US 13 to Suffolk as the route, as it would be about the same mileage, and is on their statewide plan to make that a full freeway. It's going to be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out in the end.
NCDOT maps from the feasibility study of how it may be upgraded/new location built, in case anybody hasn't seen them - http://www.dailyadvance.com/.media/2/2017/09/25/fb1d4a8f-a524-48f9-b6dd-7716cdf09686.pdf
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2018, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
Raleigh-Norfolk on Google Maps it is 184 miles current versus 208 miles proposed.
Looking at it from Google Maps, US 64 at I-95 to I-64 at US 17 via 58 is 135 miles, whereas 17 is 150, which is a 15 mile difference.
Spurious comparison. I-64/US-17 junction is 7 miles from downtown Norfolk, so that would subtract mileage from your route.
Going from center to center like I did is a better overall comparison. 24 miles difference. The existing route is even more favorable for the western part of the metro such as the I-664 corridor.
The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, should be upgraded to full freeway standards within 10 years. The 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will widened to 6 lanes with access management, starting in 2 years.
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
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.
...or that the Army Corps of Engineers would frown upon a new route cutting through wetlands when there are existing upgradable routes available, as VDOT discovered when they blew millions on the US-460 toll road without any dirt being turned.
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 07:26:39 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
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.
...or that the Army Corps of Engineers would frown upon a new route cutting through wetlands when there are existing upgradable routes available, as VDOT discovered when they blew millions on the US-460 toll road without any dirt being turned.
That wasn't at all the reason why the US-460 freeway project was stopped. It was because of lying, dishonesty and a corrupt process of the McAullife administration who stopped the project.
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 07:35:40 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 07:26:39 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
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.
...or that the Army Corps of Engineers would frown upon a new route cutting through wetlands when there are existing upgradable routes available, as VDOT discovered when they blew millions on the US-460 toll road without any dirt being turned.
That wasn't at all the reason why the US-460 freeway project was stopped. It was because of lying, dishonesty and a corrupt process of the McAullife administration who stopped the project.
Care to elaborate? Because pulling the plug on a toll road that would've been on a completely new alignment paralleling the existing US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, that had a snowball's chance in hell of getting approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and would've carried little traffic since it would've been easily shunpiked, seemed like a good decision to me. The US-460 toll road would've been an even bigger boondoggle than I-87! :banghead:
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 10:00:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 07:35:40 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 07:26:39 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
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.
...or that the Army Corps of Engineers would frown upon a new route cutting through wetlands when there are existing upgradable routes available, as VDOT discovered when they blew millions on the US-460 toll road without any dirt being turned.
That wasn't at all the reason why the US-460 freeway project was stopped. It was because of lying, dishonesty and a corrupt process of the McAullife administration who stopped the project.
Care to elaborate? Because pulling the plug on a toll road that would've been on a completely new alignment paralleling the existing US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, that had a snowball's chance in hell of getting approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and would've carried little traffic since it would've been easily shunpiked, seemed like a good decision to me. The US-460 toll road would've been an even bigger boondoggle than I-87! :banghead:
That is part of the lies of the McAullife administration.
The project had a completed NEPA process, meaning an FHWA approved Final EIS and Record of Decision. The ROD included comments by ACOE that they approved of the alignment. The project contract was awarded. When the McAullife administration came in they got their cronies in the Obama EPA to delay what would have been the routine final permits, that kept the project from entering construction. Then they did a Supplemental EIS that somehow (!) came up with wetland acreage impact totals that were 4 times the figure in the Final EIS that had been approved a couple years before. Then they killed the project on the grounds that the wetland impacts were "too high". This was after $240 million was spent since the contract award on design-build and what I would term "rapid and intense mobilization", and this money was permanently lost to the state. The $1.4 billion contract for 49 miles of 4-lane Interstate-caliber freeway works out to about $28 million per mile, and they will never see a deal that good again.
An Interstate-caliber highway between the Richmond-Petersburg area and South Hampton Roads would have gotten plenty usage, especially in the future, and it would have either relieved traffic on I-64 or at least forestalled growth on I-64. It would have had a $3.70 toll which I would have found very reasonable and would have made it the ideal route for those points. It would have been completed in 2016. Preventing "shunpiking" would have been easy, keep the old US-460 at 4 lanes in the towns and repaint the roadway in the rural areas as 2 lanes with full paved shoulders. The Interstate route (I suggested either I-62 or I-264 extended) would have open road tolling and would have beat the old highway hands down. (I am aware that the 6-lane US-58 between Suffolk and I-64, that Interstate upgrades are necessary).
So now we are stuck with a 4-lane undivided highway (except for about a dozen intersections that have turn lanes) with structurally flawed, bumpy (right lanes have concrete base that is 75+ years old) and worn out pavement that needs either total replacement or to be relegated to minor primary traffic volumes. The pavement total replacement would cost at least $100 million and it would still be a substandard highway.
Folks, if you want to discuss US 460, you're in the wrong forum.
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2018, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
Raleigh-Norfolk on Google Maps it is 184 miles current versus 208 miles proposed.
Looking at it from Google Maps, US 64 at I-95 to I-64 at US 17 via 58 is 135 miles, whereas 17 is 150, which is a 15 mile difference.
Spurious comparison. I-64/US-17 junction is 7 miles from downtown Norfolk, so that would subtract mileage from your route.
Going from center to center like I did is a better overall comparison. 24 miles difference. The existing route is even more favorable for the western part of the metro such as the I-664 corridor.
The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, should be upgraded to full freeway standards within 10 years. The 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will widened to 6 lanes with access management, starting in 2 years.
What I'm trying to say though, no extensive upgrades are happening. The bypass connectors will really be the only time-saving one, by a minute. The 6-lane management will turn the road into a slower speed limit, more traffic signals, and the US 58 to I-64 upgrades will simply help traffic flow better, and make it safer, but no speed increases (as far as I know), etc.
In the end, the projects (except for the bypass connector) will simply help traffic flow better, not speed anyone up (except for the bypass connector). If VDOT were to consider a full freeway from Suffolk to Emporia/South Hill, they would most likely use new location as an excuse to use tolls (except for existing bypasses), just like 460. Follow the $$$. Obviously, the wish is to have a freeway 58, 460, and 17/64 for no tolls, but obviously the only viable one when it comes to money is 17/64, which NCDOT is able to fund, which is why they're doing it. This interstate linkage is needed, and since VDOT can't do it, NCDOT decided to use this route instead since they could fund it. VDOT just doesn't have the money to create a freeway from Suffolk to Emporia, and if they did, it'd probably be tolled.
Interested for this to come out in September - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/us_58_arterial_management_plan.asp
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 23, 2018, 07:04:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
I-64/US-17 junction is 7 miles from downtown Norfolk, so that would subtract mileage from your route.
Going from center to center like I did is a better overall comparison. 24 miles difference. The existing route is even more favorable for the western part of the metro such as the I-664 corridor.
The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, should be upgraded to full freeway standards within 10 years. The 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will widened to 6 lanes with access management, starting in 2 years.
What I'm trying to say though, no extensive upgrades are happening. The bypass connectors will really be the only time-saving one, by a minute. The 6-lane management will turn the road into a slower speed limit, more traffic signals, and the US 58 to I-64 upgrades will simply help traffic flow better, and make it safer, but no speed increases (as far as I know), etc.
The 6-lane access management project will not reduce the speed limit or create more traffic signals, it will considerably improve traffic flow.
Given 20 years there will surely be major upgrades. Given the modest traffic volumes and the high-type design of the current highway, the average end-to-end speed is not much less than that of an Interstate highway.
Current VA law allows any limited access highway the possibility of a 70 mph speed limit. The bypasses are all limited access. A half year before the 1973 NMSL, a 65 mph possible maximum was approved for 4-lane divided nonlimited-access highways, which the NMSL canceled before any went into effect. No reason why it could not be approved again. (And don't give me this garbage that it would "reduce the ticket revenue").
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 23, 2018, 06:17:47 PM
Folks, if you want to discuss US 460, you're in the wrong forum.
Agreed. I will post it in the appropriate thread that already exists.
I have been waiting for the opportunity! :pan:
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.
It would have been smart for Virginia to develop a freeway along US 58, but it's a lot tougher to start doing that now. In the meanwhile North Carolina developed US 64 as a freeway all the way from Raleigh to Williamston.
I don't think there was ever a real plan for a statewide freeway network in NC; there was just a feeling that if we need to upgrade a crummy highway, we might as well build a freeway. This impulse has served the state well.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.
Virginia has over 450 miles of limited access town and city bypasses on the 4-lane arterial highway system. Add-em-up. Also a number of major metropolitan non-Interstate freeways such as VA-288, VA-150, VA-76, VA-895, VA-168, VA-164, VA-267 and VA-28. Different ways of distributing the mileage, but it is there in quantity nonetheless.
N.C. is a rapid-population-growth state, 20-22% per decade over the last 30 years. The national average is about 12%. Virginia has been about 14% which is above average. N.C. far exceeds that and they really need their level of highway construction, they would be choking otherwise.
N.C.'s major central cities lack rivers, which simplifies road needs. Take a look at the James River, the Potomac River, the Elizabeth River, the Hampton Roads estuary, and Chesapeake Bay and look at the large number of major bridges and tunnels that have been needed there. More are planned in the near future. Then get back with me about N.C.'s highway system that is boring in comparison.
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.
Virginia has over 450 miles of limited access town and city bypasses on the 4-lane arterial highway system. Add-em-up. Also a number of major metropolitan non-Interstate freeways such as VA-288, VA-150, VA-76, VA-895, VA-168, VA-164, VA-267 and VA-28. Different ways of distributing the mileage, but it is there in quantity nonetheless.
N.C. is a rapid-population-growth state, 20-22% per decade over the last 30 years. The national average is about 12%. Virginia has been about 14% which is above average. N.C. far exceeds that and they really need their level of highway construction, they would be choking otherwise.
N.C.'s major central cities lack rivers, which simplifies road needs. Take a look at the James River, the Potomac River, the Elizabeth River, the Hampton Roads estuary, and Chesapeake Bay and look at the large number of major bridges and tunnels that have been needed there. More are planned in the near future. Then get back with me about N.C.'s highway system that is boring in comparison.
That's the whole point here, you're contradicting yourself now. North Carolina is in a much better position to build this interstate than Virginia is along 58. VDOT is mainly concerned in widening urban Hampton Roads interstates/highways/roads & major water crossings over the next 10-15 years. The entire US 58 corridor to 95 and Emporia is in the Hampton Roads district which is where a lot of the funds there are being prioritized in the urban freeways/roads, the water crossings, etc, not to create some new rural freeway to Emporia that wouldn't have much significance to the flow of traffic, like urban HR, or another example is the US 460 bypass of Windsor which also get denied cause of costs of $400 million, and again, lack of significance to the flow of traffic compared to HR. Imagine what a full 58 freeway would cost. If 58 ever did get an upgrade, it wouldn't be for another 10-20+ years after all of urban Hampton Roads is funded, and enough can be saved for an entire 58 freeway.
On the other hand, NCDOT has an entire land route, and so does VDOT's portion, which is much more feasible to upgrade, as there's no big water crossings upgrades like Hampton Roads NCDOT has to deal with. Division 1 also does not have any major urban areas to deal with, along with no existing interstates, no water crossings, no major traffic issues to deal with, which puts them in the better position to build a new freeway all the way through. The Elizabeth City also has a military base which lacks any connection to the interstate system. Also, all the towns on the I-87 corridor are all in support, whereas a 58 freeway might have some opposition, especially near Emporia. So look at it this way - 17 will get done before any full 58 freeway is complete, and 17 is also more feasible, cost effective, and reasonable. So this is why the routing of I-87 is the way it is.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.
It would have been smart for Virginia to develop a freeway along US 58, but it's a lot tougher to start doing that now. In the meanwhile North Carolina developed US 64 as a freeway all the way from Raleigh to Williamston.
I don't think there was ever a real plan for a statewide freeway network in NC; there was just a feeling that if we need to upgrade a crummy highway, we might as well build a freeway. This impulse has served the state well.
Good portions of U.S. 220 were also freeway before turned into I-73/74.
This is North Carolina's proposed projects which went through the STIP for the next 10 years. Many of them didn't receive funding, though it gives you an idea of what they want in 20+ years down the line. http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=2b885d0f163b4c34a831c65010fd5703
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 04:13:52 PM
That's the whole point here, you're contradicting yourself now. North Carolina is in a much better position to build this interstate than Virginia is along 58.
And I have posted ad infinitum why the long circuitous route east of I-95 along US-64 and US-17, is not suited for an Interstate highway when a capable 4-lane interregional highway already exists, and no cities exist along that route other than at each end and already well connected.
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64? Think before you answer.
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 04:13:52 PM
That's the whole point here, you're contradicting yourself now. North Carolina is in a much better position to build this interstate than Virginia is along 58.
And I have posted ad infinitum why the long circuitous route east of I-95 along US-64 and US-17, is not suited for an Interstate highway when a capable 4-lane interregional highway already exists, and no cities exist along that route other than at each end and already well connected.
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64? Think before you answer.
The statement "no cities exist along along that route" is false. U.S. 64/U.S. 17 from Raleigh to Norfolk have cities of Nashville, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City. There's also lots of towns along the route such as Knightdale, Zebulon, Spring Hope, Momeyer, Tarboro, Princeville, Robersonville, Everetts, Williamston, Windsor, Edenton, Hertford, and Winfall. It is a route filled with lots of other communities as well, many towns, and a few cities. It has major growth opportunities. As for time and miles, there are a few bypasses for US 17 that would shave off some time & miles, such as the talked about Williamston north bypass, and also a southern Windsor which would also straight shot to the Windsor bypass, as opposed to the existing arc around today.
On the other hand, U.S. 58 has the cities of Suffolk and Franklin, and the towns of Courtland and Capron. Your statement more goes for 58. Less growth opportunities on that corridor.
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64? Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64? Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.
I think I-87 is meant for both really, it not only bring the eastern cities/towns into the interstate system, also economic growth, and just to provide an interstate between these two thriving areas.
Wonder if at the I-95/US-64(Future I-87) interchange near Rocky Mount NCDOT will post Norfolk as a control city in order to try and divert as much traffic as possible from the popular and shorter I-95/US-58 route.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 24, 2018, 07:29:44 PM
Wonder if at the I-95/US-64(Future I-87) interchange near Rocky Mount NCDOT will post Norfolk as a control city in order to try and divert as much traffic as possible from the popular and shorter I-95/US-58 route.
Most likely, as Norfolk will probably be added to most signage northbound I-87. Also going north at the 95 split off, a new overhead saying "I-87 North Norfolk, Elizabeth City" should be added.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
The statement "no cities exist along along that route" is false. U.S. 64/U.S. 17 from Raleigh to Norfolk have cities of Nashville, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City. There's also lots of towns along the route such as Knightdale, Zebulon, Spring Hope, Momeyer, Tarboro, Princeville, Robersonville, Everetts, Williamston, Windsor, Edenton, Hertford, and Winfall. It is a route filled with lots of other communities as well, many towns, and a few cities.
Nashville is on Future I-495. Rocky Mount is on I-95 and the current route. If Elizabeth City is incorporated as a city then it is a very small city. East of Rocky Mount it is a very rural corridor that is well served by the existing 4-lane interregional highway. The 4-lane interregional highway concept was made for a corridor like that. An Interstate highway would be wasteful.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
It has major growth opportunities. As for time and miles, there are a few bypasses for US 17 that would shave off some time & miles, such as the talked about Williamston north bypass, and also a southern Windsor which would also straight shot to the Windsor bypass, as opposed to the existing arc around today.
Very little if any per satellite views.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
On the other hand, U.S. 58 has the cities of Suffolk and Franklin, and the towns of Courtland and Capron. Your statement more goes for 58. Less growth opportunities on that corridor.
I am not advocating an Interstate route along US-58, so your comment is irrelevant.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 07:41:34 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 24, 2018, 07:29:44 PM
Wonder if at the I-95/US-64(Future I-87) interchange near Rocky Mount NCDOT will post Norfolk as a control city in order to try and divert as much traffic as possible from the popular and shorter I-95/US-58 route.
Most likely, as Norfolk will probably be added to most signage northbound I-87. Also going north at the 95 split off, a new overhead saying "I-87 North Norfolk, Elizabeth City" should be added.
You have a good spyglass, looking 30+ years into the future. :hmmm:
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64? Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.
There was some absurdity to my statement. You are not going to feasibly connect two cities with an Interstate highway when a better route already exists.
Northeastern North Carolina is already tied to the central part of the state via a 4-lane interregional highway (US-64 and US-17).
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 07:49:40 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64? Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.
There was some absurdity to my statement. You are not going to feasibly connect two cities with an Interstate highway when a better route already exists.
Northeastern North Carolina is already tied to the central part of the state via a 4-lane interregional highway (US-64 and US-17).
4 lane highways exist all over, but what do most people prefer driving, 4 lane divided highways, or interstates? One example is from Norfolk to Bristol, I do a route on Google Maps and it tells me to take I-64 to I-81 which is 417 miles. US 58 is 387 miles, but it still routes me on the faster route. Interstates bring higher speeds, much quicker movements in and out of cities/towns, more businesses along the router, etc. That's the whole point for this thing.
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 07:42:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
The statement "no cities exist along along that route" is false. U.S. 64/U.S. 17 from Raleigh to Norfolk have cities of Nashville, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City. There's also lots of towns along the route such as Knightdale, Zebulon, Spring Hope, Momeyer, Tarboro, Princeville, Robersonville, Everetts, Williamston, Windsor, Edenton, Hertford, and Winfall. It is a route filled with lots of other communities as well, many towns, and a few cities.
Nashville is on Future I-495. Rocky Mount is on I-95 and the current route. If Elizabeth City is incorporated as a city then it is a very small city. East of Rocky Mount it is a very rural corridor that is well served by the existing 4-lane interregional highway. The 4-lane interregional highway concept was made for a corridor like that. An Interstate highway would be wasteful.
Rocky Mount is on the east side of I-95, not part of the old 495, and Elizabeth City is an actively growing city, along with the other larger towns on 17. I do think 58 is the faster route right now, and yes my opinion is that it should become a freeway/interstate. But the fact is, VDOT doesn't have any large improvements planned for the corridor except around Suffolk, and until any 58 freeway is made, I-87 will be most likely faster when it's completed, bring a higher speed route to US 17, and will grow eastern NC alot. Another aspect is it will tie Elizabeth City into Hampton Roads better with the interstate between the two, and two new industry parks/mega sites planned near there.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
4 lane highways exist all over, but what do most people prefer driving, 4 lane divided highways, or interstates?
The 4-lane interregional highway class fulfills a valuable role in intra-state highways that supplement the Interstate system, and provide connectivity to smaller towns and cities that are not on the Interstate system. More than a 2-lane highway but less than a freeway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
One example is from Norfolk to Bristol, I do a route on Google Maps and it tells me to take I-64 to I-81 which is 417 miles. US 58 is 387 miles, but it still routes me on the faster route. Interstates bring higher speeds, much quicker movements in and out of cities/towns, more businesses along the router, etc. That's the whole point for this thing.
Of course not. Bad comparison. US-58 still has some long 2-lane sections between I-77 and Stuart, that really slow things down, and can handle only low volumes. The distance difference is a much smaller percentage than with so-called I-87.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
I do think 58 is the faster route right now, and yes my opinion is that it should become a freeway/interstate. But the fact is, VDOT doesn't have any large improvements planned for the corridor except around Suffolk, and until any 58 freeway is made, I-87 will be most likely faster when it's completed, bring a higher speed route to US 17,
Already refuted, several times, this is getting tiresome.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
Rocky Mount is on the east side of I-95, not part of the old 495, and Elizabeth City is an actively growing city, along with the other larger towns on 17. I do think 58 is the faster route right now, and yes my opinion is that it should become a freeway/interstate. But the fact is, VDOT doesn't have any large improvements planned for the corridor except around Suffolk, and until any 58 freeway is made, I-87 will be most likely faster when it's completed, bring a higher speed route to US 17, and will grow eastern NC alot. Another aspect is it will tie Elizabeth City into Hampton Roads better with the interstate between the two, and two new industry parks/mega sites planned near there.
Let's try this a different way. Right now Google says it is 2 hr 41 min from the Raleigh Beltway to Port Norfolk using 95/58. Google also shows it is 203 miles if I use 64/17 to Port Norfolk. I doubt I-87 will be appreciably shorter than this. In order to cover the 203 miles in 2 hr 41 min I would have to average 76 mph. This would be quite a feat given the speed limit the last 10 miles or more in the Norfolk area will not be 70. So count me with the crowd that says I-87 will not be faster.
And in case folks are skeptical that VDOT is looking to improve US 58 from Emporia to Suffolk, VDOT is already formally studying the entire corridor: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/us_58_arterial_management_plan.asp
The remaining Courtland stoplight will be gone by the end of the year (new interchange) and ROW is underway for the west Suffolk improvements noted in this thread.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 06:54:32 PMHowever, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.
It was also designed to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. That way, they could advertise to businesses that the region has an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast.
If there was ever any proof of that very reason, I got it in 2016 when NC's Congressional delegation introduced the Eastern NC Gateway Act in Congress. The bill would've designated the NC-11/US-13 corridor between Kinston and Bethel a High Priority Corridor and future interstate. Obviously the bill didn't get anywhere since it was introduced shortly before the 2016 elections, but the state hasn't given up on it. The Greenville Southwest Bypass that's currently under construction is being built to interstate standards and NCDOT has plans to upgrade NC-11 to interstate standards between the SW Bypass and the future interchange with the Harvey Parkway just north of Kinston.
https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Greenville%20hwy.pdf (https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Greenville%20hwy.pdf)
The NC-11 upgrade project was included in NCDOT's 2018-2027 STIP. It can be found on page 128, Project R-5815.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf)
Quote from: LM117 on February 24, 2018, 09:57:02 PM
It was also designed to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. That way, they could advertise to businesses that the region has an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast.
But why? They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection. Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 24, 2018, 09:57:02 PM
It was also designed to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. That way, they could advertise to businesses that the region has an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast.
But why? They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection. Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
But why? They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection. Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.
Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway. Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:34:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
But why? They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection. Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.
Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway. Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
Interstates need to prioritized for major routes, such as I-42, and smaller ones like I-87 should be held off or done in small parts. Four-lane highways should get smaller projects done such as access control for smaller rural intersections, and larger ones with interchanges to allow higher speeds. Look at Texas, they have regular four-lane rural highways, non freeway with 75mph speed limits. More of these projects should be done and 65mph (70 should be reserved for freeways) speed limits should be allowed on 4-lane partial-control of access freeways. Cheaper, and gets the job done.
I'm seeing the term 4-lane interregional highway tossed about pretty freely in this thread; but except for in the upper Midwest (particularly IA & WI but with some presence in MN, MO, and NE, along with the [gag] MSR 110/CKC concept), where it seems to indicate a particular design idiom, the term is broad enough to encompass everything from signaled arterials to quasi-Interstate-grade freeways. What characterizes such a facility seems to largely depend on the jurisdiction; the full-freeway US 64 portion of future I-87 seems to typify NC's approach, while in VA US 58 adheres to lesser standards (largely due to age) while maintaining a divided status. VA (and SC for that matter) also features quite a few "twinned" 4-lane facilities (VA: US 29, SC: SC 151) where much if not all of the road consists of an original 2-lane alignment with a 2nd parallel carriageway constructed later, usually with full public & private access. While some may quibble with new Interstate development, the fact remains that those facilities are at least consistent as to design and access criteria (the driver knows what he or she is getting -- the Surekill and BQE anomalies notwithstanding!). I googled up "4-lane interregional highway" just to see if the term was in common usage and -- guess what -- the few references cited circled right back to this forum -- with particular reference back to the later posts in this very thread! Since the actual characteristics of the individual examples of this "category" of highway seem to vary widely by jurisdiction, it seems somewhat presumptuous to assert a broad claim that facilities so described generally provide service levels approximating if not equaling those of Interstate or Interstate-grade routes. Perhaps the raw capacities may be similar, but toss in the safety aspect endemic to limited access as well as the potential for inefficiencies due to periodic signalization, dodging cross traffic (with special mention given to farm equipment -- I personally have had more than a few close calls!), and the occasional speed trap, and the comparisons fall by the wayside. I'd have little or no trouble accepting a classification such as this -- even if it seems cobbled up for comparative purposes -- if indeed there was some consistency (a facility similar to the Avenue of the Saints, even incomplete, would satisfy that definition) regarding what is encountered "on the ground".
Quote from: sparker on February 25, 2018, 03:22:29 AM
I'm seeing the term 4-lane interregional highway tossed about pretty freely in this thread;
A term that I have often used. If you don't like that, how about 4-lane rural arterial highway? 4-lane intra-state highway? Those have seen official usage.
A 4-lane highway long distance route that has town bypasses and supplements the Interstate system. Carries substantial volumes of long-distance traffic and large truck traffic, but generally less than that of an Interstate route.
Quote from: sparker on February 25, 2018, 03:22:29 AM
but except for in the upper Midwest (particularly IA & WI but with some presence in MN, MO, and NE, along with the [gag] MSR 110/CKC concept), where it seems to indicate a particular design idiom, the term is broad enough to encompass everything from signaled arterials to quasi-Interstate-grade freeways. What characterizes such a facility seems to largely depend on the jurisdiction; the full-freeway US 64 portion of future I-87 seems to typify NC's approach,
Not really, many such NC highways have at-grade intersections and including nonlimited-access right-of-way.
The Interstate class has its own problems, some are freeways with 4 lanes (the minimum standard) but little or nothing else. Things like rural routes with 4-foot medians and 10 feet of clear roadside, short accell-decell lanes, sharp curves, bad pavement, bad shoulders, etc. The argument can be made that they should never have been allowed into the Interstate system.
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:34:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
But why? They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection. Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.
Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway. Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk? It certainly happened along US 70 in eastern NC, which is why that road is being replaced by I-42.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2018, 02:45:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:34:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
But why? They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection. Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.
Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway. Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk? It certainly happened along US 70 in eastern NC, which is why that road is being replaced by I-42.
US 70 through Charlotte was upgraded to an interesting type of divided highway. There's still driveways where needed, but the big intersections got replaced with smaller interchanges for slower speed limits, definitely not for a rural route, but it serves its purpose in that urban area, and traffic flows freely on it at 45-55mph. US 29 in Charlottesville and US 58 in Suffolk are being widened to 6 lanes and being made an urban roadway, with no interchanges, just traffic signals (as far as I know). Now US 58 between I-664 and the Suffolk Bypass is being upgraded to interstate standards with a couple of interchanges, but that road already has limited driveways, 6 lanes, and 60mph speed limits. They are considering widening it to 8 lanes potentially, an interchange near the airport, and widening the shoulders to 10-12 feet on both sides to meet standards. Would be interesting to see a speed hike to 65mph, but I doubt it knowing VDOT.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2018, 02:45:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:34:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
But why? They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection. Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.
Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway. Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk? It certainly happened along US 70 in eastern NC, which is why that road is being replaced by I-42.
Another good example is Elizabeth City. U.S. Route 17 Business through the city was the main route, and it got clogged with development, so they built a bypass, US 17 Bypass. Years later, and guess what? That route is now clogged. So in 2002, they decided to build a full freeway bypass that completely avoids the city. One of the reasons it was made limited-access is so there wouldn't be this issue. The old US 17 Bypass is now US 17, with the new bypass US 17 Bypass. Elizabeth City has 3 Route 17 routes as of today now.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 03:14:21 PM
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk?
Two-lane highways work fine until they don't. Four-lane freeways work fine until they don't. Six-lane freeways work fine until they don't. Not sure what your point was.
Four-lane intra-state (or whatever you call them) highways are an important class of highway between the 2-lane highway class and the Interstate highway class. In many places around the country including the vast majority of their mileage in Virginia they handle traffic at nearly Interstate average speeds.
Adding interchanges in rural areas incrementally works well and is affordable, just in the US-29 Culpeper-Warrenton area there have been three in the last 15 years and another was just awarded.
Of course US-29 between Whoville and Gainesville is one of the busy highway segments that truly should have gotten a freeway full bypass with construction beginning at least 15 years ago, but there are too many RE/T groups in that area, so fat chance.
It will not take that much more work to keep US-58 between I-95 and I-64 flowing at near Interstate speeds, several more interchanges and the full freeway upgrade of the segment between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64.
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 03:33:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 03:14:21 PM
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk?
Two-lane highways work fine until they don't. Four-lane freeways work fine until they don't. Six-lane freeways work fine until they don't. Not sure what your point was.
Four-lane intra-state (or whatever you call them) highways are an important class of highway between the 2-lane highway class and the Interstate highway class. In many places around the country including the vast majority of their mileage in Virginia they handle traffic at nearly Interstate average speeds.
Adding interchanges in rural areas incrementally works well and is affordable, just in the US-29 Culpeper-Warrenton area there have been three in the last 15 years and another was just awarded.
Of course US-29 between Whoville and Gainesville is one of the busy highway segments that truly should have gotten a freeway full bypass with construction beginning at least 15 years ago, but there are too many RE/T groups in that area, so fat chance.
It will not take that much more work to keep US-58 between I-95 and I-64 flowing at near Interstate speeds, several more interchanges and the full freeway upgrade of the segment between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64.
I do agree, they should just build some interchanges along it overtime, and work toward access-control. Could potentially build new location from the Suffolk Bypass to Holland, and new location near Emporia and a new interchange I-95. If they ever did improve it, increased the speed, it would definitely beat I-87. I suppose I-87 would be beneficial from southern Chesapeake, the developed areas of northeast NC, to connect to I-95, but Hampton Roads should work on improving US 58. What would be nice is to freeway 58 from I-64 and I-81. THAT would be a benefit for many.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 03:49:20 PM
I do agree, they should just build some interchanges along it overtime, and work toward access-control. Could potentially build new location from the Suffolk Bypass to Holland, and new location near Emporia and a new interchange I-95. If they ever did improve it, increased the speed, it would definitely beat I-87.
^Heres a fictional thread in which we discussed such concepts:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20535.0
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 03:23:37 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2018, 02:45:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:34:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
But why? They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection. Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.
Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway. Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk? It certainly happened along US 70 in eastern NC, which is why that road is being replaced by I-42.
Another good example is Elizabeth City. U.S. Route 17 Business through the city was the main route, and it got clogged with development, so they built a bypass, US 17 Bypass. Years later, and guess what? That route is now clogged. So in 2002, they decided to build a full freeway bypass that completely avoids the city. One of the reasons it was made limited-access is so there wouldn't be this issue. The old US 17 Bypass is now US 17, with the new bypass US 17 Bypass. Elizabeth City has 3 Route 17 routes as of today now.
That 17 Bypass is eventually going to be renamed I-87, thus will reduce the Route 17s from 3 to 2.
Quote from: Strider on February 25, 2018, 07:46:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 03:23:37 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2018, 02:45:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:34:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
But why? They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection. Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.
Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway. Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk? It certainly happened along US 70 in eastern NC, which is why that road is being replaced by I-42.
Another good example is Elizabeth City. U.S. Route 17 Business through the city was the main route, and it got clogged with development, so they built a bypass, US 17 Bypass. Years later, and guess what? That route is now clogged. So in 2002, they decided to build a full freeway bypass that completely avoids the city. One of the reasons it was made limited-access is so there wouldn't be this issue. The old US 17 Bypass is now US 17, with the new bypass US 17 Bypass. Elizabeth City has 3 Route 17 routes as of today now.
That 17 Bypass is eventually going to be renamed I-87, thus will reduce the Route 17s from 3 to 2.
When they sign I-87, are they going to take off the 17 Bypass?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 03:49:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 03:33:59 PM
It will not take that much more work to keep US-58 between I-95 and I-64 flowing at near Interstate speeds, several more interchanges and the full freeway upgrade of the segment between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64.
I do agree, they should just build some interchanges along it overtime, and work toward access-control. Could potentially build new location from the Suffolk Bypass to Holland, and new location near Emporia and a new interchange I-95. If they ever did improve it, increased the speed, it would definitely beat I-87.
Credit to Adam F. for posting conceptual maps of those bypass extensions.
A major portion of that route that includes US-58 is on I-95 and Future I-495. It would handily beat (time and distance) so-called I-87 today, and even just modest improvements like I laid out will keep it that way.
A tight urban interchange could replace that major signalized intersection on US-58 just east of I-95. That would be a big improvement.
Gee -- looks like I poked a hornet's nest here! Let's try to boil this down to a few items: The route currently described as Future I-87 (as well as HPC #13) is, sui generis, not the shortest or most efficient route between Raleigh and Hampton Roads; by all accounts that would be a combination of US 64 (former future I-495), I-95, and US 58. Message received by all parties; reiteration unnecessary henceforth. At this point, any decision to proceed with the present plans for I-87 lies strictly within NCDOT and its political handlers. VA, at neither state nor local level, has little to gain by developing their segment, so for the foreseeable future it's functionally a dead issue within that state. The actual projected routing in the northeast corner of NC is muddied by some who want to shunt it over to MSR 168 simply because that route has more limited-access development in VA than the more direct US 17. This anomaly notwithstanding, NCDOT is planning to build out this facility. Fortunately for them, the ROW for about 95 miles east of Raleigh is already developed as a full freeway; bringing it out to Interstate specs would be a process similar to what MS had to do with the US 78 freeway in order to achieve the I-22 designation. The rest, except for the Elizabeth City bypass, is "up for grabs" regarding how much new-terrain construction will be necessary to satisfy folks in the affected areas; given the swampy terrain and the likely need for structures to address that, it certainly won't be cheap!
But the folks in NE NC have the ear of NCDOT as well as the state's Congressional delegation; they damn well want their Interstate (87 -- the number and the process by which it was selected still piss me off!) and the chances are, despite criticism from some, they'll get it. BTW -- if traffic ends up emptying out onto existing US 17 at the NC/VA state line and using that route to access I-64, it's still only about 16-17 miles longer than the I-95/US 58 combination. As long as NC interests -- within and outside of the state government -- perceive that they can benefit from the corridor's development as an Interstate, everything else is just noise. Yeah, it's blatantly political and dubiously economic in nature, but so's pretty much everything else around publicly-funded highways these days. A priori notions about highway development have, for better or worse, been discarded -- the rule appears to be "money talks, everything else walks!" Frankly, I don't think NCDOT or other in-state interests give a shit whether VA develops their "puny" 18 or so miles of the corridor; if they can convince firms with warehousing needs to locate along the Rocky Mount-Tarboro-Bethel corridor because of a red, white, and blue shield, that's all that counts. They'll divert a reasonable amount of traffic if they slap a "Norfolk" control city line on the BGS at the 87/95 interchange; NB it'll be the first reference to that area they'll get from 95! This is an intrastate project posing as an interstate corridor; the chances are it'll get built in the next 25-30 years, unless something in the environmental area crops up regarding the stretch north of the Sound. And with or without VA cooperation, it'll be like horseshoes -- I-87's the archetypal "leaner".
Quote from: sparker on February 26, 2018, 12:18:44 AM
Gee -- looks like I poked a hornet's nest here! Let's try to boil this down to a few items: The route currently described as Future I-87 (as well as HPC #13) is, sui generis, not the shortest or most efficient route between Raleigh and Hampton Roads; by all accounts that would be a combination of US 64 (former future I-495), I-95, and US 58. Message received by all parties; reiteration unnecessary henceforth. At this point, any decision to proceed with the present plans for I-87 lies strictly within NCDOT and its political handlers. VA, at neither state nor local level, has little to gain by developing their segment, so for the foreseeable future it's functionally a dead issue within that state. The actual projected routing in the northeast corner of NC is muddied by some who want to shunt it over to MSR 168 simply because that route has more limited-access development in VA than the more direct US 17. This anomaly notwithstanding, NCDOT is planning to build out this facility. Fortunately for them, the ROW for about 95 miles east of Raleigh is already developed as a full freeway; bringing it out to Interstate specs would be a process similar to what MS had to do with the US 78 freeway in order to achieve the I-22 designation. The rest, except for the Elizabeth City bypass, is "up for grabs" regarding how much new-terrain construction will be necessary to satisfy folks in the affected areas; given the swampy terrain and the likely need for structures to address that, it certainly won't be cheap!
But the folks in NE NC have the ear of NCDOT as well as the state's Congressional delegation; they damn well want their Interstate (87 -- the number and the process by which it was selected still piss me off!) and the chances are, despite criticism from some, they'll get it. BTW -- if traffic ends up emptying out onto existing US 17 at the NC/VA state line and using that route to access I-64, it's still only about 16-17 miles longer than the I-95/US 58 combination. As long as NC interests -- within and outside of the state government -- perceive that they can benefit from the corridor's development as an Interstate, everything else is just noise. Yeah, it's blatantly political and dubiously economic in nature, but so's pretty much everything else around publicly-funded highways these days. A priori notions about highway development have, for better or worse, been discarded -- the rule appears to be "money talks, everything else walks!" Frankly, I don't think NCDOT or other in-state interests give a shit whether VA develops their "puny" 18 or so miles of the corridor; if they can convince firms with warehousing needs to locate along the Rocky Mount-Tarboro-Bethel corridor because of a red, white, and blue shield, that's all that counts. They'll divert a reasonable amount of traffic if they slap a "Norfolk" control city line on the BGS at the 87/95 interchange; NB it'll be the first reference to that area they'll get from 95! This is an intrastate project posing as an interstate corridor; the chances are it'll get built in the next 25-30 years, unless something in the environmental area crops up regarding the stretch north of the Sound. And with or without VA cooperation, it'll be like horseshoes -- I-87's the archetypal "leaner".
I'm all for having an interstate between Norfolk and Raleigh, and while it may be quicker on US 17/64 route when it's complete, the mileage significantly increases. But I guess one of the reasons this route was leaned upon was not only for the business, but the fact that VDOT doesn't have any MAJOR improvements planned for US 58. IMO, I think that both US 58 and US 64/17 should be developed into freeways, as they are both major important routes for all the cities that lie on them, and doing so would create one big loop between 58/I-95/64/17. I created a concept in which US 58 could be improved through Emporia (https://goo.gl/yp3THL), and doing this would be one step further into upgrading 58. As for the rural areas on 58, a lot of it can get access roads on it and an interchange here and there. It would also need some new location routes, but it wouldn't be that expensive to upgrade near the rural areas. US 17 on the other hand is a much longer route to upgrade, new location routes would be needed significantly, or a large amount of torn down properties. All of this though should all be taken one step at a time. In the long-term future, I think all of these routes should be upgraded to interstate standards, cost-effectively
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 08:04:01 PMWhen they sign I-87, are they going to take off the 17 Bypass?
NCDOT hasn't said anything about it yet, but I hope so. Otherwise, it would just be another unnecessary overlap like US-64/264 and I-87/I-440.
But at least they took US-17 off the Wilmington Bypass once I-140 was built, as well as put US-117 back on it's former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson once I-795 took over the freeway, so I have some hope that sanity will prevail here.
Quote from: sparker on February 26, 2018, 12:18:44 AM
BTW -- if traffic ends up emptying out onto existing US 17 at the NC/VA state line and using that route to access I-64, it's still only about 16-17 miles longer than the I-95/US 58 combination.
I've counterposted this "fact" before, referring to the US-17/I-64/I-464 interchange as a destination point. If the destination is downtown Norfolk, Port Norfolk or Norfolk International Terminals, HPC #13 will be at least 24 miles longer than the current route.
Why doesn't a near-straight line (someone mentioned NC 11/US 13) work?
Quote from: 1 on February 26, 2018, 06:41:59 AM
Why doesn't a near-straight line (someone mentioned NC 11/US 13) work?
That is not a straight line from I-95/US-64 junction, it is a dogleg. Also not enough population along that route to even justify a 4-lane highway.
It's already a done deal in NC. We're building our part. I've said before, I don't care if they build it a 1/4 inch into VA's border. It's happening. I don't care what VA does or doesn't do with its part.
Nobody cares about US 58 being a faster route. Those that want to go that way will continue to do so. There will be plenty of people that will like the simplicity and go straight on I-87. Both routes are viable.
It is documented that companies do favor places with interstate access to locate to. It won't "save" Northeastern NC. But it does finally get those towns & cities names on "the list" for some of these companies that wouldn't have been without interstate access.
Besides US 17 is a route that trucks and people use to travel throughout Eastern NC to and from Norfolk. Upgrading US17 to I-87 (from 55-70mph) between Williamston & Elizabeth City will help goods and people get from Norfolk to their destinations in Eastern NC faster, especially when traveling through the northeastern portion. There are companies in Washington NC or New Bern NC that get their goods delivered or visit other companies in the Norfolk area that would love to shave some time off the drive.
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 06:38:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 08:04:01 PMWhen they sign I-87, are they going to take off the 17 Bypass?
NCDOT hasn't said anything about it yet, but I hope so. Otherwise, it would just be another unnecessary overlap like US-64/264 and I-87/I-440.
But at least they took US-17 off the Wilmington Bypass once I-140 was built, as well as put US-117 back on it's former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson once I-795 took over the freeway, so I have some hope that sanity will prevail here.
They will. I can bet you that. It will be so weird to sign I-87 with "Bypass" US 17 while you already have a US-17 AND Business US 17 in the same town/area. One of the US 17s has to go and I can bet it will be that "Bypass" US 17 that will be removed, so I-87 will be the sole shield on the bypass, unless they decide to eliminate Business US 17 through the town.
Quote from: michealbond on February 26, 2018, 01:00:09 PM
It's already a done deal in NC. We're building our part. I've said before, I don't care if they build it a 1/4 inch into VA's border. It's happening. I don't care what VA does or doesn't do with its part.
Nobody cares about US 58 being a faster route. Those that want to go that way will continue to do so. There will be plenty of people that will like the simplicity and go straight on I-87. Both routes are viable.
The current route is simple for anyone who knows how to drive. If Virginia tells them to pound sand then there won't be a completed Interstate.
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 06:45:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 26, 2018, 06:41:59 AM
Why doesn't a near-straight line (someone mentioned NC 11/US 13) work?
That is not a straight line from I-95/US-64 junction, it is a dogleg. Also not enough population along that route to even justify a 4-lane highway.
But the purpose of I-87 is to provide an efficient connection between Raleigh and Hampton Roads, no? Because right now it seems like that was a lie and that the true purpose is to put a red, white, and blue shield in every Podunk town in eastern NC. I'm sure NY's Southern Tier can tell them about how using interstates to drive economic growth is a bad idea.
And it definitely should not be I-87. I could
vaguely see a north-south number when I assumed that it would follow NC 11/US 13. But knowing what I do now? It doesn't even remotely resemble north-south and should be renumbered accordingly.
It seems like the Carolina Southway just becomes more and more an affront to everything that was elegant about the original interstate system (and first round of additions) the more I learn about it. The interstate system has become a complete mess, and a majority (though not all) of the blame can be heaped at Texas and North Carolina.
Quote from: Strider on February 26, 2018, 02:12:46 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 06:38:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 08:04:01 PMWhen they sign I-87, are they going to take off the 17 Bypass?
NCDOT hasn't said anything about it yet, but I hope so. Otherwise, it would just be another unnecessary overlap like US-64/264 and I-87/I-440.
But at least they took US-17 off the Wilmington Bypass once I-140 was built, as well as put US-117 back on it's former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson once I-795 took over the freeway, so I have some hope that sanity will prevail here.
They will. I can bet you that. It will be so weird to sign I-87 with "Bypass" US 17 while you already have a US-17 AND Business US 17 in the same town/area. One of the US 17s has to go and I can bet it will be that "Bypass" US 17 that will be removed, so I-87 will be the sole shield on the bypass, unless they decide to eliminate Business US 17 through the town.
I doubt US-17 Business will be eliminated, if NCDOT's inaction in Goldsboro is any indication. Last year, Goldsboro had asked NCDOT to decommission US-70 between both ends of the new US-70 Bypass and move US-70 Business from downtown to what would've been US-70's former alignment.
Thankfully, NCDOT never followed through with that stupidity since no such request was made to AASHTO.
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 02:36:23 PM
But the purpose of I-87 is to provide an efficient connection between Raleigh and Hampton Roads, no? Because right now it seems like that was a lie and that the true purpose is to put a red, white, and blue shield in every Podunk town in eastern NC. I'm sure NY's Southern Tier can tell them about how using interstates to drive economic growth is a bad idea.
And it definitely should not be I-87. I could vaguely see a north-south number when I assumed that it would follow NC 11/US 13. But knowing what I do now? It doesn't even remotely resemble north-south and should be renumbered accordingly.
It seems like the Carolina Southway just becomes more and more an affront to everything that was elegant about the original interstate system (and first round of additions) the more I learn about it. The interstate system has become a complete mess, and a majority (though not all) of the blame can be heaped at Texas and North Carolina.
Agreed. The 4-lane rural highways (interregional, arterial, intrastate, etc.) get short shrift by some in the business community and official community. I would like to see a special designation for them to highlight them, maybe with a sign panel over the route sign, with "ARTERIAL" or "INTRA-STATE" or some simple way to show the public that this is a completed 4-lane corridor. Publicize the fact that this type is a high-speed 4-lane highway not built to full freeway standards.
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 02:36:23 PMthe true purpose is to put a red, white, and blue shield in every Podunk town in eastern NC.
Exaggerate much? It's not like anybody is pushing for an interstate to connect Snow Hill and Saratoga. :rolleyes: Other than I-87, what future interstate in eastern NC do you think is not warranted?
Extending I-795 to I-40 will form a high speed shortcut between I-95 and the Port of Wilmington, as well as functioning as a hurricane evacuation route. There are even more trucks on the corridor now since Enviva recently built their wood pellet plant next to the I-40 interchange. I-795's future new alignment in Goldsboro will also provide a desperately needed second crossing of the Neuse River since the current US-117 bridges are very flood prone.
I-42 is a major freight corridor, hurricane evacuation route, and is especially heavily traveled during the summer by tourists.
I-587 will give the largest city and medical/economic hub of eastern NC, Greenville, an interstate connection to I-95 and Raleigh. US-264 is already a 70mph freeway and, unlike I-87, will take little work to bring it to interstate standards. It's already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. However, I will admit that because US-264 is already a freeway, it is nowhere near as much a priority as I-795 and I-42.
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 02:36:23 PM
But the purpose of I-87 is to provide an efficient connection between Raleigh and Hampton Roads, no? Because right now it seems like that was a lie and that the true purpose is to put a red, white, and blue shield in every Podunk town in eastern NC. I'm sure NY's Southern Tier can tell them about how using interstates to drive economic growth is a bad idea.
And it definitely should not be I-87. I could vaguely see a north-south number when I assumed that it would follow NC 11/US 13. But knowing what I do now? It doesn't even remotely resemble north-south and should be renumbered accordingly.
It seems like the Carolina Southway just becomes more and more an affront to everything that was elegant about the original interstate system (and first round of additions) the more I learn about it. The interstate system has become a complete mess, and a majority (though not all) of the blame can be heaped at Texas and North Carolina.
NO, the primary purpose of I-87 is NOT to provide an efficient connection between Raleigh and Hampton Roads. The primary purpose of I-87 is to provide the communities of northeastern NC a more efficient connection to Raleigh and to Hampton Roads. Those who think these communities don't need these more efficient connections are entitled to their opinion, but the decisions necessarily lie with those most effected.
The "elegant" original interstate system was highly concentrated in the northeastern quarter of the country. As the rest of the country develops, it needs more infrastructure including more interstate routes. NC need not apologize, IMHO, for building up a modern statewide system.
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA. In any case, NC's interstates have resulted in numerous short 2dis and long 3dis (I-587 is noteworthy because it will be at least 25% the size of its parent), duplicated interstates, a north-south interstate signed as east-west (I-26), an east-west interstate signed as north-south (I-87), inelegant routings and designations (I-795 will have an otherwise pointless overlap with I-587 just to meet its parent), and a system that will likely be as dense as the originally proposed freeway (not just interstate, and not just built) system of Connecticut by the time they're done.
Honestly, most of the newer additions to the interstate system strike me as pure pork (with a side of "we're going to designate this random freeway as an interstate for no other reason than NMSL") rather than filling in gaps in a coherent nationwide system. Just look at some of the city sizes. Ithaca, NY, is twice the size of Elizabeth City, yet which one is getting an interstate built just so the state can say it has a red, white, and blue shield? And it's not like having an interstate shield is the economic miracle that many places seem to think it is - just look at NY's Southern Tier.
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA. In any case, NC's interstates have resulted in numerous short 2dis and long 3dis (I-587 is noteworthy because it will be at least 25% the size of its parent), duplicated interstates, a north-south interstate signed as east-west (I-26), an east-west interstate signed as north-south (I-87), inelegant routings and designations (I-785 will have an otherwise pointless overlap with I-840 just to meet its parent), and a system that will likely be as dense as the originally proposed freeway (not just interstate, and not just built) system of Connecticut by the time they're done.
Honestly, most of the newer additions to the interstate system strike me as pure pork (with a side of "we're going to designate this random freeway as an interstate for no other reason than NMSL") rather than filling in gaps in a coherent nationwide system. Just look at some of the city sizes. Ithaca, NY, is twice the size of Elizabeth City, yet which one is getting an interstate built just so the state can say it has a red, white, and blue shield? And it's not like having an interstate shield is the economic miracle that many places seem to think it is - just look at NY's Southern Tier.
FTFY. Thankfully I-587 will not make it to Greensboro.
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA. In any case, NC's interstates have resulted in numerous short 2dis and long 3dis (I-587 is noteworthy because it will be at least 25% the size of its parent), duplicated interstates, a north-south interstate signed as east-west (I-26), an east-west interstate signed as north-south (I-87), inelegant routings and designations (I-785 will have an otherwise pointless overlap with I-587 just to meet its parent), and a system that will likely be as dense as the originally proposed freeway (not just interstate, and not just built) system of Connecticut by the time they're done.
Honestly, most of the newer additions to the interstate system strike me as pure pork (with a side of "we're going to designate this random freeway as an interstate for no other reason than NMSL") rather than filling in gaps in a coherent nationwide system. Just look at some of the city sizes. Ithaca, NY, is twice the size of Elizabeth City, yet which one is getting an interstate built just so the state can say it has a red, white, and blue shield? And it's not like having an interstate shield is the economic miracle that many places seem to think it is - just look at NY's Southern Tier.
To be honest, focus & funds from I-87 should be directed into widening I-95 through the state to 6-8 lanes. That is way more of a priority, traffic is horrible during peak seasons.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 26, 2018, 07:58:25 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA. In any case, NC's interstates have resulted in numerous short 2dis and long 3dis (I-587 is noteworthy because it will be at least 25% the size of its parent), duplicated interstates, a north-south interstate signed as east-west (I-26), an east-west interstate signed as north-south (I-87), inelegant routings and designations (I-785 will have an otherwise pointless overlap with I-840 just to meet its parent), and a system that will likely be as dense as the originally proposed freeway (not just interstate, and not just built) system of Connecticut by the time they're done.
Honestly, most of the newer additions to the interstate system strike me as pure pork (with a side of "we're going to designate this random freeway as an interstate for no other reason than NMSL") rather than filling in gaps in a coherent nationwide system. Just look at some of the city sizes. Ithaca, NY, is twice the size of Elizabeth City, yet which one is getting an interstate built just so the state can say it has a red, white, and blue shield? And it's not like having an interstate shield is the economic miracle that many places seem to think it is - just look at NY's Southern Tier.
FTFY. Thankfully I-587 will not make it to Greensboro.
Whoops - meant I-795, but you just found another one!
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 03:26:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 02:36:23 PMthe true purpose is to put a red, white, and blue shield in every Podunk town in eastern NC.
Exaggerate much? It's not like anybody is pushing for an interstate to connect Snow Hill and Saratoga. :rolleyes: Other than I-87, what future interstate in eastern NC do you think is not warranted?
None of those roads that you listed warrant an Interstate route designation. Portions of them may warrant a full freeway design upgrade based on the level of car and truck volumes, but that doesn't mean that they need to be in the Interstate system. The Interstate system is a backbone system of the highest priority inter-state highways, which includes supplementary loops and spurs.
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 08:48:52 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 03:26:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 02:36:23 PMthe true purpose is to put a red, white, and blue shield in every Podunk town in eastern NC.
Exaggerate much? It’s not like anybody is pushing for an interstate to connect Snow Hill and Saratoga. :rolleyes: Other than I-87, what future interstate in eastern NC do you think is not warranted?
None of those roads that you listed warrant an Interstate route designation. Portions of them may warrant a full freeway design upgrade based on the level of car and truck volumes, but that doesn't mean that they need to be in the Interstate system. The Interstate system is a backbone system of the highest priority inter-state highways, which includes supplementary loops and spurs.
Interstates should always traverse between at least 2 states. Any interstate within one state should either be simply upgraded with no special designation, or a spur designation from it's parent, even in longer cases like I-42. I-42 should be I-340 or something IMO. If it entered another state, then a primary designation is fine.
As for I-795 and I-587, I think those interstates are fair to have, as they're branch routes of one main route.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 08:48:52 PM
None of those roads that you listed warrant an Interstate route designation. Portions of them may warrant a full freeway design upgrade based on the level of car and truck volumes, but that doesn't mean that they need to be in the Interstate system. The Interstate system is a backbone system of the highest priority inter-state highways, which includes supplementary loops and spurs.
Interstates should always traverse between at least 2 states. Any interstate within one state should either be simply upgraded with no special designation, or a spur designation from it's parent, even in longer cases like I-42. I-42 should be I-340 or something IMO. If it entered another state, then a primary designation is fine.
As for I-795 and I-587, I think those interstates are fair to have, as they're branch routes of one main route.
The Interstate backbone system does include some mainline routes that are in only one state, as they function as mainline route connectors. Such as I-4, I-16, I-66 (does enter D.C.), NY I-88, just to list a few that are in the original Interstate system of 1956 and 1968. Are a bunch of new ones needed? No.
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 08:48:52 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 03:26:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 02:36:23 PMthe true purpose is to put a red, white, and blue shield in every Podunk town in eastern NC.
Exaggerate much? It's not like anybody is pushing for an interstate to connect Snow Hill and Saratoga. :rolleyes: Other than I-87, what future interstate in eastern NC do you think is not warranted?
None of those roads that you listed warrant an Interstate route designation. Portions of them may warrant a full freeway design upgrade based on the level of car and truck volumes, but that doesn't mean that they need to be in the Interstate system. The Interstate system is a backbone system of the highest priority inter-state highways, which includes supplementary loops and spurs.
The Interstate system was also originally conceived as a way to serve the military. Considering that there are two military bases along the I-42 corridor, one of which is also served by I-795, that alone already makes US-70 and US-117 eligible for Interstate status.
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 09:25:00 PM
The Interstate system was also originally conceived as a way to serve the military. Considering that there are two military bases along the I-42 corridor, one of which is also served by I-795, that alone already makes US-70 and US-117 eligible for Interstate status.
Not true. It was originally conceived as a way to serve both civil and military needs, actually primarily to serve the burgeoning civil traffic volumes after WW II.
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA.
It was much easier to get Congressional support by marketing I-87 as a way to connect two nearby large metros rather than trying to convince Congress that rural eastern NC wants to have an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. Anybody reading between the lines can see what I-87's real purpose is.
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 11:10:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA.
It was much easier to get Congressional support by marketing I-87 as a way to connect two nearby large metros rather than trying to convince Congress that rural eastern NC wants to have an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. Anybody reading between the lines can see what I-87's real purpose is.
They are smart enough to be able to look on a map and see that that is not so. Besides, it would only connect thru 4 counties, not "eastern NC".
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 11:19:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 11:10:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA.
It was much easier to get Congressional support by marketing I-87 as a way to connect two nearby large metros rather than trying to convince Congress that rural eastern NC wants to have an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. Anybody reading between the lines can see what I-87's real purpose is.
They are smart enough to be able to look on a map and see that that is not so. Besides, it would only connect thru 4 counties, not "eastern NC".
The route runs through towns in those counties & Elizabeth City itself, which are areas for growth. It's more Northeastern NC, as Eastern NC is too generic, the Southeast NC already has I-40, etc.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2018, 11:37:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 11:19:30 PM
They are smart enough to be able to look on a map and see that that is not so. Besides, it would only connect thru 4 counties, not "eastern NC".
The route runs through towns in those counties & Elizabeth City itself, which are areas for growth. It's more Northeastern NC, as Eastern NC is too generic, the Southeast NC already has I-40, etc.
Why aren't they growing with the high speed high capacity 4-lane highway that already exists?
Per Google Maps, Elizabeth City to downtown Norfolk is 47.2 miles and 51 minutes. Few commuters would be willing to go that far, while that is an easy trip for a large truck.
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 11:19:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 11:10:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA.
It was much easier to get Congressional support by marketing I-87 as a way to connect two nearby large metros rather than trying to convince Congress that rural eastern NC wants to have an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. Anybody reading between the lines can see what I-87's real purpose is.
They are smart enough to be able to look on a map and see that that is not so. Besides, it would only connect thru 4 counties, not "eastern NC".
:banghead:
https://butterfield.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/butterfield-reintroduces-highway-bill-for-eastern-north-carolina-with (https://butterfield.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/butterfield-reintroduces-highway-bill-for-eastern-north-carolina-with)
QuoteSpecifically, H.R. 2211 guarantees that the corridor connecting Raleigh and Norfolk is built to interstate standards, that the route travels through eastern North Carolina
QuoteButterfield said, "The ROAD Act will better connect eastern North Carolina to our state's Capitol and to one of the country's premier ports in Hampton Roads, Virginia. This bill is a key part of my vision to significantly advance transportation in the region and will, among other things, reduce traffic congestion, improve access, and pave the way for job creation and further economic development in North Carolina and Virginia. There is no question that this will boost the local and regional economies. I thank my colleagues for their support."
The Federal Highway Administration estimates that $1 billion in transportation funding can support approximately 30,000 jobs which would be critical to economic development in eastern North Carolina. Passing legislation to designate the highways as a future interstate can lead to modernization and investment in the region's highway infrastructure. This important bill is a key step in Butterfield's plan to build a strong transportation network, put North Carolinians to work, and accelerate the upgrade of U.S. highways 64 and 17.
Quote"We appreciate the continued collaboration and support of Congressman Butterfield, Senator Tillis and the NC congressional delegation to strengthen vital transportation corridors in our state," said NCDOT Secretary Tony Tata. " This important designation will help better connect many areas of eastern North Carolina to jobs and other opportunities in the economic center of Hampton Roads and enhance freight movement as outlined in Governor McCrory's 25 Year Vision."
https://jones.house.gov/press-release/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-improve (https://jones.house.gov/press-release/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-improve)
QuoteThis legislation is a complement to my previously enacted ROAD Act and Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act and builds on my vision to better connect eastern North Carolina with Raleigh, the Port at Morehead City, and the Hampton Roads region of Virginia."
Quote from: LM117 on February 27, 2018, 01:10:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 11:19:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 11:10:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA.
It was much easier to get Congressional support by marketing I-87 as a way to connect two nearby large metros rather than trying to convince Congress that rural eastern NC wants to have an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. Anybody reading between the lines can see what I-87's real purpose is.
They are smart enough to be able to look on a map and see that that is not so. Besides, it would only connect thru 4 counties, not "eastern NC".
:banghead:
https://butterfield.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/butterfield-reintroduces-highway-bill-for-eastern-north-carolina-with (https://butterfield.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/butterfield-reintroduces-highway-bill-for-eastern-north-carolina-with)
QuoteSpecifically, H.R. 2211 guarantees that the corridor connecting Raleigh and Norfolk is built to interstate standards, that the route travels through eastern North Carolina
Politicians can wave their hands and make declarations and make "guarantees" and give speeches, all they want, but that doesn't mean that they are dealing with reality.
How can one state's general assembly "guarantee" what highway another state will build? :pan:
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 07:12:53 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 27, 2018, 01:10:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 11:19:30 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 11:10:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA.
It was much easier to get Congressional support by marketing I-87 as a way to connect two nearby large metros rather than trying to convince Congress that rural eastern NC wants to have an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. Anybody reading between the lines can see what I-87's real purpose is.
They are smart enough to be able to look on a map and see that that is not so. Besides, it would only connect thru 4 counties, not "eastern NC".
:banghead:
https://butterfield.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/butterfield-reintroduces-highway-bill-for-eastern-north-carolina-with (https://butterfield.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/butterfield-reintroduces-highway-bill-for-eastern-north-carolina-with)
QuoteSpecifically, H.R. 2211 guarantees that the corridor connecting Raleigh and Norfolk is built to interstate standards, that the route travels through eastern North Carolina
How can one state's general assembly "guarantee" what highway another state will build? :pan:
Good grief...NC's General Assembly was not involved. It was a bill that was introduced in Congress in the spring of 2015, which later got absorbed into the FAST Act that Obama signed in December of that year. But Congress can't make states build highways, so in that respect your point carries.
Quote from: LM117 on February 27, 2018, 08:16:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 07:12:53 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 27, 2018, 01:10:24 AM
QuoteSpecifically, H.R. 2211 guarantees that the corridor connecting Raleigh and Norfolk is built to interstate standards, that the route travels through eastern North Carolina
How can one state's general assembly "guarantee" what highway another state will build?
Good grief...NC's General Assembly was not involved. It was a bill that was introduced in Congress in the spring of 2015, which later got absorbed into the FAST Act that Obama signed in December of that year. But Congress can't make states build highways, so in that respect your point carries.
My mistake ... I see it was a N.C. Congressman from the U.S. House of Representatives. Nevertheless it is one person introducing a bill that may or may not be able move forward.
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 08:28:44 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 27, 2018, 08:16:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 07:12:53 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 27, 2018, 01:10:24 AM
QuoteSpecifically, H.R. 2211 guarantees that the corridor connecting Raleigh and Norfolk is built to interstate standards, that the route travels through eastern North Carolina
How can one state's general assembly "guarantee" what highway another state will build?
Good grief...NC's General Assembly was not involved. It was a bill that was introduced in Congress in the spring of 2015, which later got absorbed into the FAST Act that Obama signed in December of that year. But Congress can't make states build highways, so in that respect your point carries.
My mistake ... I see it was a N.C. Congressman from the U.S. House of Representatives. Nevertheless it is one person introducing a bill that may or may not be able move forward.
This is a variation on the old adage about leading a horse to water; in this case Butterfield & company crafted this legislation (back in 2015) which has since been passed as adding the Interstate designation to HPC 13. The responsibility for
that action is solely on Congress; but in this instance both the state legislature and NCDOT are in the process of "drinking that water"; only VA has demurred so far. However, as I've stated upstream, NC and the interests within the state -- especially the NE quarter -- aren't likely to have much concern about the 9% of the corridor that's out of their state and therefore out of their control; they'll just chug away at building/modifying their 91% until it reaches the state line and slap up BGS's with "Norfolk" as the control city as well as a shitload of I-87 shields. FWIW, they'll probably do the same with I-73 along US 220 up to the state line south of Martinsville (whether they have the brass ones to put "Roanoke" on
those BGS's has yet TBD!).
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 11:10:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA.
It was much easier to get Congressional support by marketing I-87 as a way to connect two nearby large metros rather than trying to convince Congress that rural eastern NC wants to have an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. Anybody reading between the lines can see what I-87's real purpose is.
So basically, they lied and defrauded Congress to manipulate them into approving a route they otherwise would have balked at.
Quote from: sparker on February 27, 2018, 10:59:23 AM
This is a variation on the old adage about leading a horse to water; in this case Butterfield & company crafted this legislation (back in 2015) which has since been passed as adding the Interstate designation to HPC 13. The responsibility for that action is solely on Congress; but in this instance both the state legislature and NCDOT are in the process of "drinking that water"; only VA has demurred so far. However, as I've stated upstream, NC and the interests within the state -- especially the NE quarter -- aren't likely to have much concern about the 9% of the corridor that's out of their state and therefore out of their control; they'll just chug away at building/modifying their 91% until it reaches the state line and slap up BGS's with "Norfolk" as the control city as well as a shitload of I-87 shields. FWIW, they'll probably do the same with I-73 along US 220 up to the state line south of Martinsville (whether they have the brass ones to put "Roanoke" on those BGS's has yet TBD!).
I have no issue with what N.C. does with I-73, after all that was authorized back in 1995 and VDOT competed a full NEPA process on the NC to I-81 segment in 2006. I would like to see it built in the future, but there is that $4 billion cost...
And of course HPC 13 won't be an Interstate highway between those two cities unless and until it is completed over the whole distance. When N.C. talks about "Norfolk" as the control city, are they assuming that I-464 will be renumbered and I-87 being overlapped onto I-264 into Norfolk?
HPC 13 is now entirely completed to 4-lane rural arterial standards as generally defined in the country.
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 02:51:56 PM
When N.C. talks about "Norfolk" as the control city, are they assuming that I-464 will be renumbered and I-87 being overlapped onto I-264 into Norfolk?
No, they are using "Norfolk" as a destination, even if it means going onto another highway to get there. We have examples of this on every type of road, best example is all the roads that list "Myrtle Beach" as a destination, despite most converging onto US 501.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on February 27, 2018, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 02:51:56 PM
When N.C. talks about "Norfolk" as the control city, are they assuming that I-464 will be renumbered and I-87 being overlapped onto I-264 into Norfolk?
No, they are using "Norfolk" as a destination, even if it means going onto another highway to get there. We have examples of this on every type of road, best example is all the roads that list "Myrtle Beach" as a destination, despite most converging onto US 501.
The City of Chesapeake is a major city in and of itself, and it is definitely separate from Norfolk.
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 02:51:56 PM
And of course HPC 13 won't be an Interstate highway between those two cities unless and until it is completed over the whole distance. When N.C. talks about "Norfolk" as the control city, are they assuming that I-464 will be renumbered and I-87 being overlapped onto I-264 into Norfolk?
Of course it won't be an Interstate highway between those two cities, it'll be an Interstate highway between Raleigh and the NC/VA state line prior to VA upgrading their portion (if that occurs at all). But signage over just the completed portions hasn't been an issue with other NC Interstates (73 and 74 immediately come to mind); it'll likely happen with I-87 as well -- at least after the substandard portion from east of Raleigh to Tarboro is brought up to snuff.
Don't get me wrong -- I have doubts about whether this corridor is the best regional solution to egress from the Hampton Roads metro area to the south -- but I have absolutely no doubts as to NC's resolve about building it anyway. But considering some of the info that's been forthcoming in other NC-related threads, there might well be a "back-door" silver lining to all this if the state eventually decides to slap an Interstate-grade freeway along the rest of US 17 down through Wilmington to SC. The region gets the N-S Atlantic corridor it's really always wanted, and that POS I-87 designation may yet get usurped. And present US 64 reverts (albeit upgraded) to what it always has been -- a cross-state arterial (although I wouldn't expect NCDOT to remove Norfolk as a control city at the present I-95/US 64 interchange). I'll even venture a guess that this scenario is on paper or in file form somewhere in the bowels of NCDOT, in the queue to be trotted out after other nascent corridors are well under way. At this point, I wouldn't put anything of the sort past them and their political handlers!
Quote from: vdeane on February 27, 2018, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2018, 11:10:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
That's not how I recall them selling I-87 to AASHTO and the FHWA.
It was much easier to get Congressional support by marketing I-87 as a way to connect two nearby large metros rather than trying to convince Congress that rural eastern NC wants to have an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. Anybody reading between the lines can see what I-87's real purpose is.
So basically, they lied and defrauded Congress to manipulate them into approving a route they otherwise would have balked at.
To an extent. However, bear in mind what I linked earlier. NC's Congressional delegation made it no secret what I-87's true purpose is when the ROAD Act was first introduced. What really sealed the deal was the fact that the Regional Transportation Alliance in Raleigh pushed and lobbied hard for a Raleigh-Norfolk interstate, as well as support from Hampton Roads. You would've been hard put to find any local politician that would've opposed giving the world's largest naval base an additional interstate connection. Whenever there's a military base along or at the beginning/end of a proposed interstate, it makes getting it approved much easier.
In other words, eastern NC threw the football and Raleigh & Norfolk ran it to the end zone. Eastern NC gets the interstate they want while Raleigh & Hampton Roads take the credit.
Near the bottom of this page is a list of politicians and local governments/other groups that endorsed I-87's corridor:
http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/congestion-relief/interstate-87/i-495-future-i-44-learn-more/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/congestion-relief/interstate-87/i-495-future-i-44-learn-more/)
Wow, you can get whiplash following the back-and-forth in this thread. North Carolina has capable defenders and equally capable detractors.
Let me back way up for some deeper context. In addition to being the Tar Heel State, NC has called itself the Good Roads State for the past century or more. Now that name was always more aspirational than descriptive: the state has always had and still has some not-so-good roads.
However, North Carolina really wants to be the Good Roads State. Road-building is a big deal here. We pay 34.55 cents a gallon gas tax. That is the ninth highest in the country, I believe; for sure it is much higher than the rate in any other southern state except for Florida. If you've driven through North Carolina, then I'm sure you're nodding your head: the gas tax in North Carolina is more than twice that in South Carolina and more than 50% higher than in Virginia.
Well, guess what: if you have more money you can build more roads and you can spread them out across the state. By my count North Carolina has 2,149 miles of freeway today with about 50 miles of freeways under construction. Depending on how you classify some of the approved but maybe-not-signed routes, the state has about 1400 miles of Interstate highways and therefore about 750 miles of non-Interstate highways.
Several contributors to the forum are skeptical that building roads attracts economic development. It's easy to argue this for a particular route such as the proposed I-87. But look at the big picture. In the last 50 years North Carolina has grown very fast in both wealth and population despite the fact that its three major industries 50 years ago (tobacco, textiles, and furniture) all collapsed during that period. At the end of the day, infrastructure has to have some importance for economic development.
So if you think North Carolina has "too many" freeways or "too many" Interstate routes, help yourself. Just don't expect North Carolinians to pay much attention to your opinion.
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 04:14:15 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on February 27, 2018, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 02:51:56 PM
When N.C. talks about "Norfolk" as the control city, are they assuming that I-464 will be renumbered and I-87 being overlapped onto I-264 into Norfolk?
No, they are using "Norfolk" as a destination, even if it means going onto another highway to get there. We have examples of this on every type of road, best example is all the roads that list "Myrtle Beach" as a destination, despite most converging onto US 501.
The City of Chesapeake is a major city in and of itself, and it is definitely separate from Norfolk.
Norfolk is where the Navy and the jobs are; basically the bigger name.
Quote from: LM117 on February 27, 2018, 04:48:16 PM
To an extent. However, bear in mind what I linked earlier. NC's Congressional delegation made it no secret what I-87's true purpose is when the ROAD Act was first introduced. What really sealed the deal was the fact that the Regional Transportation Alliance in Raleigh pushed and lobbied hard for a Raleigh-Norfolk interstate, as well as support from Hampton Roads. You would've been hard put to find any local politician that would've opposed giving the world's largest naval base an additional interstate connection. Whenever there's a military base along or at the beginning/end of a proposed interstate, it makes getting it approved much easier.
Support north of the border has been tepid at best, and at that chambers of commerce and the like. As I have shown repeatedly, the "Raleigh-Norfolk interstate" concept is deceitful at best and malfeasance at worst.
There is no reason why the "world's largest naval base" needs "an additional interstate connection", and it is quite a distance from the City of Chesapeake in any case.
I would like to see I-564 extended to I-664, but that has been approved at least in concept for 15 years and is still on the long range plan for the area.
Quote from: LM117 on February 27, 2018, 04:48:16 PM
In other words, eastern NC threw the football and Raleigh & Norfolk ran it to the end zone.
They threw a touchdown pass to the opposing team. Wrong end zone. Oops.
Quote from: LM117 on February 27, 2018, 04:48:16 PM
Eastern NC gets the interstate they want while Raleigh & Hampton Roads take the credit.
I really don't think that the Hampton Roads area cares. They already have high capacity highway access to the north, northwest, west and and south. The day is coming when US-13 to the north will be all 4 lanes, even if it may take awhile to fund the parallel the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel. Capacity improvements are coming to US-58 and I-64. Hopefully the US-460 freeway project will be revived in some manner, the previous governor T-Mac really blew it in a big way. There are two 4-lane rural arterial corridors the south, Route 168/US-158 and US-17.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 27, 2018, 07:00:36 PM
So if you think North Carolina has "too many" freeways or "too many" Interstate routes, help yourself. Just don't expect North Carolinians to pay much attention to your opinion.
That is the kind of attitude that is becoming more and more disturbing. The state is a rapid population growth state (20-22% per decade compared to national average of 12%), so there are major highway needs, and they are putting a lot of effort forth in that area.
Any state has some influence on the other states thru its highway policies. In the case of Virginia, we share a border several hundred miles long and the road systems intertwine and by my count there are 38 highways that cross the border.
North Carolina I suppose is entitled to it's highway policies, but they are putting a variety of direct and indirect pressures on other states particularly the bordering states, and that is a major concern, and this HPC 13 / Interstate issue highlights what I don't like about how they run their highway system when it directly impacts other states. And they do directly impact border states where there are major highway crossings.
I believe that HPC 13 is fully completed to 4-lane rural arterial standards, and that a variety of localized improvements are all that is needed over the next 30+ years.
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 08:30:06 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 27, 2018, 07:00:36 PM
So if you think North Carolina has "too many" freeways or "too many" Interstate routes, help yourself. Just don't expect North Carolinians to pay much attention to your opinion.
That is the kind of attitude that is becoming more and more disturbing. The state is a rapid population growth state (20-22% per decade compared to national average of 12%), so there are major highway needs, and they are putting a lot of effort forth in that area.
Any state has some influence on the other states thru its highway policies. In the case of Virginia, we share a border several hundred miles long and the road systems intertwine and by my count there are 38 highways that cross the border.
North Carolina I suppose is entitled to it's highway policies, but they are putting a variety of direct and indirect pressures on other states particularly the bordering states, and that is a major concern, and this HPC 13 / Interstate issue highlights what I don't like about how they run their highway system when it directly impacts other states. And they do directly impact border states where there are major highway crossings.
I believe that HPC 13 is fully completed to 4-lane rural arterial standards, and that a variety of localized improvements are all that is needed over the next 30+ years.
I am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.
Quote from: Strider on February 27, 2018, 09:32:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 08:30:06 PM
I believe that HPC 13 is fully completed to 4-lane rural arterial standards, and that a variety of localized improvements are all that is needed over the next 30+ years.
I am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.
VDOT has much bigger fish to fry. At the CTB meeting last week I got a good explanation from an engineering executive about how the $3.4 billion 6-lane HRBT and approaches expansion is going to be funded, a package of approved funding mechanisms of which HOT tolls is only about 10% of the total; and that an 8-lane design is still under consideration. I feel a lot better about the project now.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on February 27, 2018, 07:16:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 04:14:15 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on February 27, 2018, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 02:51:56 PM
When N.C. talks about "Norfolk" as the control city, are they assuming that I-464 will be renumbered and I-87 being overlapped onto I-264 into Norfolk?
No, they are using "Norfolk" as a destination, even if it means going onto another highway to get there. We have examples of this on every type of road, best example is all the roads that list "Myrtle Beach" as a destination, despite most converging onto US 501.
The City of Chesapeake is a major city in and of itself, and it is definitely separate from Norfolk.
Norfolk is where the Navy and the jobs are; basically the bigger name.
Plus, Chesapeake is already used as a control city for US-17 Bypass in Elizabeth City, so it's not like it's totally left out.
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 09:38:40 PM
Quote from: Strider on February 27, 2018, 09:32:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 08:30:06 PM
I believe that HPC 13 is fully completed to 4-lane rural arterial standards, and that a variety of localized improvements are all that is needed over the next 30+ years.
I am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.
VDOT has much bigger fish to fry. At the CTB meeting last week I got a good explanation from an engineering executive about how the $3.4 billion 6-lane HRBT and approaches expansion is going to be funded, a package of approved funding mechanisms of which HOT tolls is only about 10% of the total; and that an 8-lane design is still under consideration. I feel a lot better about the project now.
What I disagree about with the HRBT is expansion, that in the end, it's just going to add a HOT lane in each direction. And if 8 lanes is chosen, similar to the High Rise Bridge, it will be two HOT and two general purpose. The project needs to widen the general purpose lanes as well, not just simply more tolled lanes. That's all VDOT seems to do these days with widenings like this, same with I-95. The High Rise & HRBT both only add HOT lanes, no free lanes. Both of these need to be 3 general purpose, with 1 HOT in each direction. As for HRBT, the issue everyone was concerned with having a 4-lane tunnel is that it would be a short lane, with lots of weaving. The tunnel needs to be built as a 4-lane tunnel with one lane simply striped off, but capable for future expansion. The land section should be 1 HOT, 2 general for now, but if ever expanded in the future, one HOT, 3 general. Obviously, a 10 or 12 lane option would've worked the best, but money gets in the way with those, so the 4 should be chosen.
As per 95, it needs to be widened to 8 lanes from Richmond to DC, and 6-8 lanes from Richmond to North Carolina. C/D lanes and braided-ramps should also be installed between heavily traveled interchanges. No tolled lanes non-sense. These express lanes may work in urban areas, but when you try to build a whole network and use it as an excuse to avoid general purpose widening just because it's "cheaper", that's just a scam for money, and to benefit those with 3+ people (or 2 in HR), or those that can pay. I know people that commute through 95 daily, and they can't use the express lanes unless paying a super high toll. VDOT is showing no effort whatsoever to improve 95. It's just adding HOT lanes to help the rich and the families & carpools through, not the actual daily commuters of the interstate, most of which don't travel HOV, like VDOT seems to think everybody does. Take a peek at I-85 in North Carolina. They're continuously widening I-85 through the state to 8 lanes. Not once have I seen a toll lane on that interstate. Now if only they'll widen I-95 in NC. Anyways, this whole HOT concept in VA spreading from North Virginia to Hampton Roads, and pretty soon they'll find some excuse to eventually bring it down 95 to Richmond. It's ridiculous, and VDOT doesn't listen to the motoring public.
Look at North Carolina. They tried introducing HOT lanes on I-77, and there was lots of opposition. NCDOT is listening, and considering buying out the contract, and widening I-77 to general purpose. This is what VDOT needs to do. Stop leaving the interstates in these urban areas as they are, and just adding HOT lanes. Widen the interstates in the free lanes, then maybe ONE toll lane in each direction at max, once the interstate is widened out in the general purpose lanes to at least 3 or 4 lanes in each direction.
Sorry to go all out on the whole HOT lane thing, as it doesn't relate to this thread, but I just have to get this off my mind. The way Virginia uses this whole HOT lane concept to avoid general-purpose projects, and just to make money in the big guys pockets just pisses me off.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 12:21:26 AM
What I disagree about with the HRBT is expansion, that in the end, it's just going to add a HOT lane in each direction. And if 8 lanes is chosen, similar to the High Rise Bridge, it will be two HOT and two general purpose. The project needs to widen the general purpose lanes as well, not just simply more tolled lanes. That's all VDOT seems to do these days with widenings like this, same with I-95. The High Rise & HRBT both only add HOT lanes, no free lanes. Both of these need to be 3 general purpose, with 1 HOT in each direction. As for HRBT, the issue everyone was concerned with having a 4-lane tunnel is that it would be a short lane, with lots of weaving. The tunnel needs to be built as a 4-lane tunnel with one lane simply striped off, but capable for future expansion. The land section should be 1 HOT, 2 general for now, but if ever expanded in the future, one HOT, 3 general. Obviously, a 10 or 12 lane option would've worked the best, but money gets in the way with those, so the 4 should be chosen.
There is no room for 10 or 12 lanes thru the I-64 approaches in Hampton and Norfolk, even 8 lanes is a squeeze if possible. No reason why a 4-lane roadway couldn't have only one HOT lane.
That is why I favored what was approved in 2000 (CBA 9) to extend I-564 to I-664 and to expand the I-664 tunnel to 10 lanes, also widening all of I-664 and connecting I-564 to Portsmouth. There is ample room for a 8 to 10 lane I-664. It would have been very expensive but it could have been built in 5 separate segments as funding became available. CBA 9 would have left the HRBT as is with 4 lanes and the I-664 tunnel would have become by far the highest traffic volume tunnel. I favored this approach but the locals decided they want the HRBT widened, and build the I-564 extension some time in the future.
Managed lanes are built because general purpose widenings tend to fill up to traffic capacity too quickly within 5 to 10 years. I-95 and I-395 in NoVA already has widths ranging from 8 lanes to 20 lanes.
The bridges and tunnels that cross ocean-going shipping channels are enormously expensive to build. Virginia has lots of them and N.C. has none.
As a former resident of the Old Dominion, I find this discussion fascinating. But it does belong in a different forum.
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
CSX has killed the hub.
http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/02/28/CSX-scraps-plans-for-rail-hub.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/02/28/CSX-scraps-plans-for-rail-hub.html)
Quote from: sparkerbut I have absolutely no doubts as to NC's resolve about building it anyway.
Which begs this question: does NC plan on using its own money to fund the bulk of construction? Or do they intend to further suck at the ever-dwindling Federal teat? The latter certainly opens them up to deserved criticism from outside the state as it should get rolled into the broader debate over Federal priorities.
If the former, then that's their business, though I'll be the first to agree that they'd be better off focusing on other corridors within the state (like I-42 and I-95...at least between Fayetteville and Benson).
Quote from: StriderI am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.
This coming from the guy who keeps saying I-73 will be built in Virginia. I see that's worked out pretty well.
But it goes to my earlier point. Does NC have a way to fund I-87? Between competing needs elsewhere (including the aforementioned I-42, I-73, I-95, and I-785) and the reality of reduced Federal investment (despite what the Trump administration is claiming...they're really NOT added any new Federal money but instead are pushing towards "private investment", which = tolls), I'm not convinced. Unless you can show proof that NCDOT has this thing funded, there are no absolutes in saying it "will be built".
Quote from: froggie on February 28, 2018, 11:23:03 AM
Quote from: sparkerbut I have absolutely no doubts as to NC's resolve about building it anyway.
Which begs this question: does NC plan on using its own money to fund the bulk of construction? Or do they intend to further suck at the ever-dwindling Federal teat? The latter certainly opens them up to deserved criticism from outside the state as it should get rolled into the broader debate over Federal priorities.
If the former, then that's their business, though I'll be the first to agree that they'd be better off focusing on other corridors within the state (like I-42 and I-95...at least between Fayetteville and Benson).
Quote from: StriderI am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.
This coming from the guy who keeps saying I-73 will be built in Virginia. I see that's worked out pretty well.
But it goes to my earlier point. Does NC have a way to fund I-87? Between competing needs elsewhere (including the aforementioned I-42, I-73, I-95, and I-785) and the reality of reduced Federal investment (despite what the Trump administration is claiming...they're really NOT added any new Federal money but instead are pushing towards "private investment", which = tolls), I'm not convinced. Unless you can show proof that NCDOT has this thing funded, there are no absolutes in saying it "will be built".
"will be built".... that is different from what I said "going to be built". That is two different perspectives.
Now you're just arguing semantics. And still doesn't answer my question about funding.
Quote from: froggie on February 28, 2018, 02:24:19 PM
Now you're just arguing semantics. And still doesn't answer my question about funding.
Because it is semantics. Maybe someone on this forum knows something about funding, or go to NCDOT's website and ask around. :-D
Quote from: Strider on February 28, 2018, 02:50:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 28, 2018, 02:24:19 PM
Now you're just arguing semantics. And still doesn't answer my question about funding.
Because it is semantics. Maybe someone on this forum knows something about funding, or go to NCDOT's website and ask around. :-D
I-87 is not any different from the other projects on NCDOT's plate. It will eventually be funded out of the same money pots as any other project; I don't think anyone has any special arrangements in mind.
Of course, construction is a long way off. NCDOT has begun the feasibility study to identify possible routes, but no routes have been selected yet. The environmental studies (and lawsuits) lie in the future, also quite a few public hearings.
Whenever it looks like I-87 projects will be shovel-ready within the next six or seven years or so they'll have to start competing with other needs in the northeastern area and across the state for inclusion in the STIP, the state's five-year transit improvement plan. Politics will play a part at this point, but no more so than for other high-need projects.
This is the same regular process that has built I-73 piece by piece and is now building I-42 piece by piece. It works.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 28, 2018, 08:20:13 AM
As a former resident of the Old Dominion, I find this discussion fascinating. But it does belong in a different forum.
Perhaps, but discussions evolve and can impact more than just the direct topic, HPC 13 in this thread. In this case, the I-95/US-58 current route is pertinent, the highway system in the Norfolk area is pertinent, the respective highway policies of the two states is pertinent, and national highway policies is pertinent.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 28, 2018, 03:46:12 PM
This is the same regular process that has built I-73 piece by piece and is now building I-42 piece by piece. It works.
I-73 came out of the national trans-Interstate highway funding act, ISTEA of 1991. An Interstate route spanning 6 states, at least that is what was authorized then by FHWA.
These recent N.C. proposed Interstates are an entirely different matter.
Quote from: Strider on February 28, 2018, 01:54:12 PM
"will be built".... that is different from what I said "going to be built". That is two different perspectives.
Both are future declaratives that mean basically the same thing.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 28, 2018, 08:20:13 AM
As a former resident of the Old Dominion, I find this discussion fascinating. But it does belong in a different forum.
Sadly I cannot move it to Mid-Atlantic since I am only a regional moderator for that area. A global mod (or I think even the regional mod for Southeast which is florida) can divide out the Virginia-related posts and move it over to Mid-Atlantic. I would then be able to move it to the correct thread. -Mark
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 03:56:24 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 28, 2018, 03:46:12 PM
This is the same regular process that has built I-73 piece by piece and is now building I-42 piece by piece. It works.
I-73 came out of the national trans-Interstate highway funding act, ISTEA of 1991. An Interstate route spanning 6 states, at least that is what was authorized then by FHWA.
These recent N.C. proposed Interstates are an entirely different matter.
That is true, and here we are, 27 years and 4 presidents later, with 98 miles of I-73 open, 4 miles under construction, and several more segments still to build. I don't know what money, if any, came with ISTEA back in 1991, but for sure it's long gone by now. NCDOT will certainly use whatever federal funds are available, but no one's crystal ball is clear enough to know what federal funding will be like out in the 2030s or whenever I-87 is under construction. So neither I-42 nor I-87 nor any other proposed NC interstate is tied to a specific fund source.
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 01:18:52 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 12:21:26 AM
What I disagree about with the HRBT is expansion, that in the end, it's just going to add a HOT lane in each direction. And if 8 lanes is chosen, similar to the High Rise Bridge, it will be two HOT and two general purpose. The project needs to widen the general purpose lanes as well, not just simply more tolled lanes. That's all VDOT seems to do these days with widenings like this, same with I-95. The High Rise & HRBT both only add HOT lanes, no free lanes. Both of these need to be 3 general purpose, with 1 HOT in each direction. As for HRBT, the issue everyone was concerned with having a 4-lane tunnel is that it would be a short lane, with lots of weaving. The tunnel needs to be built as a 4-lane tunnel with one lane simply striped off, but capable for future expansion. The land section should be 1 HOT, 2 general for now, but if ever expanded in the future, one HOT, 3 general. Obviously, a 10 or 12 lane option would've worked the best, but money gets in the way with those, so the 4 should be chosen.
There is no room for 10 or 12 lanes thru the I-64 approaches in Hampton and Norfolk, even 8 lanes is a squeeze if possible. No reason why a 4-lane roadway couldn't have only one HOT lane.
That is why I favored what was approved in 2000 (CBA 9) to extend I-564 to I-664 and to expand the I-664 tunnel to 10 lanes, also widening all of I-664 and connecting I-564 to Portsmouth. There is ample room for a 8 to 10 lane I-664. It would have been very expensive but it could have been built in 5 separate segments as funding became available. CBA 9 would have left the HRBT as is with 4 lanes and the I-664 tunnel would have become by far the highest traffic volume tunnel. I favored this approach but the locals decided they want the HRBT widened, and build the I-564 extension some time in the future.
Managed lanes are built because general purpose widenings tend to fill up to traffic capacity too quickly within 5 to 10 years. I-95 and I-395 in NoVA already has widths ranging from 8 lanes to 20 lanes.
The bridges and tunnels that cross ocean-going shipping channels are enormously expensive to build. Virginia has lots of them and N.C. has none.
I understand completely about the need for HOT lanes to fund, and to help in urban areas. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond, as they're trying to do. And also, for Hampton Roads, focus on first getting 3 general purpose lanes, and 1 HOT, as opposed to what they're doing - 2 HOT, 2 general purpose. HOT lanes should be restricted to North Virginia down to Stafford as they are now. From where it goes from 4 lanes to 3 lanes, 95 needs to be widened to 4 general purpose down to Richmond. The HOT extension down to Fredericksburg with no general purpose lanes being added, and just in general the project as a whole, is a decision made strictly for those willing to pay to use the lanes, the 3+ people, and the big guys in the office making the money. They say no taxpayer money used is a benefit. I'd rather pay slightly higher gas taxes such as North Carolina does, and actually see an outcome - more highways and road improvement projects to make transportation better (I-95 8 lanes, I-64 6-8 lanes, I-564 Ext, etc), then just continue to add HOT lanes for the people wanting to pay $10+ for a one-way trip. The whole system of HOT lanes is a joke, it's just a money maker. Whatever uses the least money, and whatever makes even more money for the politics. It just has a little bonus of - improving travel for the people willing to pay. But the real purpose is simply for money.
If the HOT lanes ended at Stafford, and the 4-lane section continued to Richmond, C/D lanes and braided ramps added where needed, I think travel would significantly improve. They say we can't pave our way out of congestion, but we should pave as much as we can before resorting to HOT, not just build HOT in the median and use that quote every time when there's clearly room on the outside to build. Raise the taxes slightly, and use our money to improve the one of the largest & most important transportation corridor through Virginia to allow all of us, the taxpayers, to enjoy the benefits for free. They're doing it with I-64, HOT lanes were considered, but they decided to widen general purpose. And travel has improved a great deal already with the new 3rd FREE lane open.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 05:06:40 PM
I understand completely about the need for HOT lanes to fund, and to help in urban areas. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond, as they're trying to do. And also, for Hampton Roads, focus on first getting 3 general purpose lanes, and 1 HOT, as opposed to what they're doing - 2 HOT, 2 general purpose. HOT lanes should be restricted to North Virginia down to Stafford as they are now. From where it goes from 4 lanes to 3 lanes, 95 needs to be widened to 4 general purpose down to Richmond. The HOT extension down to Fredericksburg with no general purpose lanes being added, and just in general the project as a whole, is a decision made strictly for those willing to pay to use the lanes, the 3+ people, and the big guys in the office making the money. They say no taxpayer money used is a benefit. I'd rather pay slightly higher gas taxes such as North Carolina does, and actually see an outcome - more highways and road improvement projects to make transportation better (I-95 8 lanes, I-64 6-8 lanes, I-564 Ext, etc), then just continue to add HOT lanes for the people wanting to pay $10+ for a one-way trip. The whole system of HOT lanes is a joke, it's just a money maker. Whatever uses the least money, and whatever makes even more money for the politics. It just has a little bonus of - improving travel for the people willing to pay. But the real purpose is simply for money.
Cut the crap, and then maybe I will take you seriously. Managed lanes are for providing more capacity that is congestion managed so that it won't quickly fill up, thus relieving pressure on the general purpose lanes. Allegeing that it is for "just making money" is demagogic at best.
North Carolina has much higher taxes than most states, on average the tax burden is something like 40% higher in road taxes, 30% higher in sales taxes and 30% higher in state income taxes. Enjoy.
There is no proposal to have HOT lanes "used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond", none has ever been proposed south of Massaponax and that only on a new reversible roadway extension. Get your facts straight.
"95 needs to be widened to 4 general purpose down to Richmond" -- I agree but its not like massive improvements have not already been made to the 95/395 corridor over the years. The entire 90-mile stretch from Ashland to the 14th Street Bridge has been widened at least once and in some places twice. I-95 was widened from Richmond to Petersburg. I suppose you could add for I-95 the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project where the Virginia Beltway approaches cost $1.0 billion, and you could certainly include the Springfield Interchange Project. I-295 itself is a capacious outer beltway that relieves I-95 and I-64 in the Richmond-Petersburg area and it has been in place now for 25 years.
I can refine this close estimate, but for now I see where Virginia has over 400 miles of Interstate and freeway with 6 or more lanes, and over 310 miles of Interstate and freeway widening projects have been built. Many segments all over the state on highways such as - 95, 395, 495, 267, 66, 150, 76, 64, 264, 564, and 81. There have been many of these widening projects the first beginning back in 1965.
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 05:40:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 05:06:40 PM
I understand completely about the need for HOT lanes to fund, and to help in urban areas. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond, as they're trying to do. And also, for Hampton Roads, focus on first getting 3 general purpose lanes, and 1 HOT, as opposed to what they're doing - 2 HOT, 2 general purpose. HOT lanes should be restricted to North Virginia down to Stafford as they are now. From where it goes from 4 lanes to 3 lanes, 95 needs to be widened to 4 general purpose down to Richmond. The HOT extension down to Fredericksburg with no general purpose lanes being added, and just in general the project as a whole, is a decision made strictly for those willing to pay to use the lanes, the 3+ people, and the big guys in the office making the money. They say no taxpayer money used is a benefit. I'd rather pay slightly higher gas taxes such as North Carolina does, and actually see an outcome - more highways and road improvement projects to make transportation better (I-95 8 lanes, I-64 6-8 lanes, I-564 Ext, etc), then just continue to add HOT lanes for the people wanting to pay $10+ for a one-way trip. The whole system of HOT lanes is a joke, it's just a money maker. Whatever uses the least money, and whatever makes even more money for the politics. It just has a little bonus of - improving travel for the people willing to pay. But the real purpose is simply for money.
Cut the crap, and then maybe I will take you seriously. Managed lanes are for providing more capacity that is congestion managed so that it won't quickly fill up, thus relieving pressure on the general purpose lanes. Allegeing that it is for "just making money" is demagogic at best.
North Carolina has much higher taxes than most states, on average the tax burden is something like 40% higher in road taxes, 30% higher in sales taxes and 30% higher in state income taxes. Enjoy.
There is no proposal to have HOT lanes "used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond", none has ever been proposed south of Massaponax and that only on a new reversible roadway extension. Get your facts straight.
If the HOT lanes are used for congestion management, then why is there constant slow down, even south of DC, but where the lanes go to? The HOT extension south is good news for carpoolers, and yes it may relieve the general purpose slightly, but new free lanes would be a much larger benefit. Yes, lots of projects lately, but as congestion continues, there needs to more projects done. In urban areas, where space is limited, sure HOT lanes could be the answer. But south of these urban areas, where there's additional room to widen, HOT lanes shouldn't be the solution right away. When there's no more room, then they could work.
North Carolina has higher taxes, but they get so much more freeways and other road projects done, for free. I-95 is a major corridor, and HOT lanes should not be the answer. These HOT lanes extensions keep coming. It's likely they'll keep proposing little and little more to eventually hit I-295. And yes, it is a money game. We pay taxes, but there hasn't been much improvements lately other than by DC and Hampton Roads. South of DC, a "tax-free" improvement is HOT lanes. Where do our taxes go? Just into more projects for DC and HR? And the money from the HOT lanes that are supposed to be used to improve I-95? I haven't seen any improvement besides more and more tolls. Hundreds could agree with me, I'm not the only one in this argument. Our money being paid in the taxes, and the HOT tolls should be showing some outcome.
If we did have higher taxes, projects like the 460 Windsor bypass, and many other highway related projects and locality projects could've gone forth instead of just being cancelled because VDOT can't fund because money shortfall, or completed with a toll, which the incentive to pay higher taxes for more roads and major improvements would increase. NC definitely sees their benefits of paying higher taxes. They continuously are able to fund more roads, highways, and limited amounts of tolls.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 05:54:56 PM
If the HOT lanes are used for congestion management, then why is there constant slow down, even south of DC, but where the lanes go to? The HOT extension south is good news for carpoolers, and yes it may relieve the general purpose slightly, but new free lanes would be a much larger benefit. Yes, lots of projects lately, but as congestion continues, there needs to more projects done. In urban areas, where space is limited, sure HOT lanes could be the answer. But south of these urban areas, where there's additional room to widen, HOT lanes shouldn't be the solution right away. When there's no more room, then they could work.
North Carolina has higher taxes, but they get so much more freeways and other road projects done, for free. I-95 is a major corridor, and HOT lanes should not be the answer. These HOT lanes extensions keep coming. It's likely they'll keep proposing little and little more to eventually hit I-295. And yes, it is a money game. We pay taxes, but there hasn't been much improvements lately other than by DC and Hampton Roads. South of DC, a "tax-free" improvement is HOT lanes. Where do our taxes go? Just into more projects for DC and HR? And the money from the HOT lanes that are supposed to be used to improve I-95? I haven't seen any improvement besides more and more tolls. Hundreds could agree with me, I'm not the only one in this argument. Our money being paid in the taxes, and the HOT tolls should be showing some outcome.
If we did have higher taxes, projects like the 460 Windsor bypass, and many other highway related projects and locality projects could've gone forth instead of just being cancelled because VDOT can't fund because money shortfall, or completed with a toll, which the incentive to pay higher taxes for more roads and major improvements would increase. NC definitely sees their benefits of paying higher taxes. They continuously are able to fund more roads, highways, and limited amounts of tolls.
The US-460 Freeway from Petersburg to Suffolk was a fully funded $1.4 billion project, and would be complete by now if not for the malfeasance of the T-Mac Regime. Would have relieved or at least forestalled traffic grown on I-64 Richmond-Norfolk in addition to providing a direct freeway route to South Hampton Roads.
VDOT has a $5.2 billion annual budget, and there are -many- projects being funded. Go thru the Six-Year Program and the VDOT Projects webpages.
I regularly benefit from using HOT lanes as do many others despite the high tolls. And they do either alleviate traffic levels or forestall traffic growth in the general purpose lanes. They also provide a high-speed corridor for express buses and car pools and van pools, and transit is certainly needed for commuters to the D.C. area urban core which includes parts of Arlington.
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 06:04:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 05:54:56 PM
If the HOT lanes are used for congestion management, then why is there constant slow down, even south of DC, but where the lanes go to? The HOT extension south is good news for carpoolers, and yes it may relieve the general purpose slightly, but new free lanes would be a much larger benefit. Yes, lots of projects lately, but as congestion continues, there needs to more projects done. In urban areas, where space is limited, sure HOT lanes could be the answer. But south of these urban areas, where there's additional room to widen, HOT lanes shouldn't be the solution right away. When there's no more room, then they could work.
North Carolina has higher taxes, but they get so much more freeways and other road projects done, for free. I-95 is a major corridor, and HOT lanes should not be the answer. These HOT lanes extensions keep coming. It's likely they'll keep proposing little and little more to eventually hit I-295. And yes, it is a money game. We pay taxes, but there hasn't been much improvements lately other than by DC and Hampton Roads. South of DC, a "tax-free" improvement is HOT lanes. Where do our taxes go? Just into more projects for DC and HR? And the money from the HOT lanes that are supposed to be used to improve I-95? I haven't seen any improvement besides more and more tolls. Hundreds could agree with me, I'm not the only one in this argument. Our money being paid in the taxes, and the HOT tolls should be showing some outcome.
If we did have higher taxes, projects like the 460 Windsor bypass, and many other highway related projects and locality projects could've gone forth instead of just being cancelled because VDOT can't fund because money shortfall, or completed with a toll, which the incentive to pay higher taxes for more roads and major improvements would increase. NC definitely sees their benefits of paying higher taxes. They continuously are able to fund more roads, highways, and limited amounts of tolls.
The US-460 Freeway from Petersburg to Suffolk was a fully funded $1.4 billion project, and would be complete by now if not for the malfeasance of the T-Mac Regime.
VDOT has a $5.2 billion annual budget, and there are -many- projects being funded.
I regularly benefit from using HOT lanes as do many others despite the high tolls. And they do either alleviate traffic levels or forestall traffic growth in the general purpose lanes.
There's lots of locality projects funded, but the 95 itself should be one, to widen with general purpose. HOT lanes are beneficial, and some will pay, those that can afford it. Other people can't afford, and wouldn't pay high tolls anyways, and VDOT is failing to fix the traffic 95, just adding a little bandage to the traffic, which are HOT lanes. Congestion points relieve, but not much. Like I said, HOT lanes work in urban areas, but in rural areas, the freeway needs to be widened for general purpose lanes. Just because some users benefit from the HOT lanes, while most choose to wait in traffic because they can't afford or just don't want to pay high tolls, doesn't mean 95 shouldn't be touched with new lanes. And fine, if they want this concept to work, for the love of god, why such high tolls? They don't get this high on I-64, and the lanes are beneficial here and affordable. Plus it's HOV 2+, not 3 for free travel.
I was also referring to the newer 460 bypass proposed just around Windsor, that could've easily been funded, for free. But it wasn't. Plus having higher taxes, that annual budget could increase, allowing even more projects to go forth.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 06:12:11 PM
There's lots of locality projects funded, but the 95 itself should be one, to widen with general purpose. HOT lanes are beneficial, and some will pay, those that can afford it. Other people can't afford, and wouldn't pay high tolls anyways, and VDOT is failing to fix the traffic 95, just adding a little bandage to the traffic, which are HOT lanes. Congestion points relieve, but not much. Like I said, HOT lanes work in urban areas, but in rural areas, the freeway needs to be widened for general purpose lanes. Just because some users benefit from the HOT lanes, while most choose to wait in traffic because they can't afford or just don't want to pay high tolls, doesn't mean 95 shouldn't be touched with new lanes. And fine, if they want this concept to work, for the love of god, why such high tolls? They don't get this high on I-64, and the lanes are beneficial here and affordable. Plus it's HOV 2+, not 3 for free travel.
I was also referring to the newer 460 bypass proposed just around Windsor, that could've easily been funded, for free. But it wasn't. Plus having higher taxes, that annual budget could increase, allowing even more projects to go forth.
That shorter US-460 bypass of Windsor would have cost over $400 million, and would have emptied out onto the old substandard 4-lane undivided US-460, and as such that much money for the limited benefits would have been unjustified, IMHO. Properly canceled.
When the HOT tolls get high that is intended to price enough traffic out of the lanes so that it will remain free flowing, that is about 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour max. Otherwise it would get bogged down into poor levels of service.
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 06:18:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 06:12:11 PM
There's lots of locality projects funded, but the 95 itself should be one, to widen with general purpose. HOT lanes are beneficial, and some will pay, those that can afford it. Other people can't afford, and wouldn't pay high tolls anyways, and VDOT is failing to fix the traffic 95, just adding a little bandage to the traffic, which are HOT lanes. Congestion points relieve, but not much. Like I said, HOT lanes work in urban areas, but in rural areas, the freeway needs to be widened for general purpose lanes. Just because some users benefit from the HOT lanes, while most choose to wait in traffic because they can't afford or just don't want to pay high tolls, doesn't mean 95 shouldn't be touched with new lanes. And fine, if they want this concept to work, for the love of god, why such high tolls? They don't get this high on I-64, and the lanes are beneficial here and affordable. Plus it's HOV 2+, not 3 for free travel.
I was also referring to the newer 460 bypass proposed just around Windsor, that could've easily been funded, for free. But it wasn't. Plus having higher taxes, that annual budget could increase, allowing even more projects to go forth.
That shorter US-460 bypass of Windsor would have cost over $400 million, and would have emptied out onto the old substandard 4-lane undivided US-460, and as such that much money for the limited benefits would have been unjustified, IMHO. Properly canceled.
When the HOT tolls get high that is intended to price enough traffic out of the lanes so that it will remain free flowing, that is about 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour max. Otherwise it would get bogged down into poor levels of service.
So basically, kick people out that aren't willing to pay as it continues to rise, dumping them onto the free lanes, causing even more congestion. And they are generally at $10+ during non-peak hours, which lots won't use them, putting them on the free 3 (south of Lorton). Back to congestion... no general purpose improvements done, few congestion relief. So like I said, a bandage to the problem, but not a full fix, which isn't coming any time soon, because this HOT lane concept which is being abused is all where it's at. Only relief mainly for the people willing to pay high, and the carpoolers, which more traffic is 1-2 people as opposed to the 3 needed. So more on the general purpose... more congestion. Got it
IIRC, HPC's, including #13, are eligible for up to 80% federal funding (I believe that extends to NHS routes as well). Of course, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that a single dollar will be forthcoming for any given project for any particular funding period; that's dependent upon the political moxie of a state's congressional delegation (and what they have to offer as incentive to get things through). Things like Interstate designation can be slipped into funding bills usually without significant objection from elsewhere -- but when it comes to divvying up any available funds, it's another story. But simply from their track record to date, NC's delegation have been quite busy and also quite successful in getting funds directed to their state; whether that's due to their inordinate ability to, as some site contributors claim, successfully market their bullshit, or have simply engaged in the age-old practice of "favor trading" with other venues, is debatable. Their success at doing so over the years is not. At this point, I don't see any additional intrinsic difficulty with their obtaining such financing for the I-87 corridor vis-Ã -vis what they have historically been able to amass. And this time they can trot out an additional "cost-effective" argument based around the fact that much of work needed on the corridor consists of on-site modifications of about 55 miles of existing US 64; no significant ROW purchases necessary for that aspect of the total project. As was iterated upstream, the singular thing that could upset this particular apple cart would be environmental objections regarding proximity to wetlands or waterways; if that doesn't emerge as an objection that can't readily be sidestepped, then in all likelihood the I-87 project will move forward one funding batch at a time until NC's portion is open for traffic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 06:26:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 06:18:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2018, 06:12:11 PM
There's lots of locality projects funded, but the 95 itself should be one, to widen with general purpose. HOT lanes are beneficial, and some will pay, those that can afford it. Other people can't afford, and wouldn't pay high tolls anyways, and VDOT is failing to fix the traffic 95, just adding a little bandage to the traffic, which are HOT lanes. Congestion points relieve, but not much. Like I said, HOT lanes work in urban areas, but in rural areas, the freeway needs to be widened for general purpose lanes. Just because some users benefit from the HOT lanes, while most choose to wait in traffic because they can't afford or just don't want to pay high tolls, doesn't mean 95 shouldn't be touched with new lanes. And fine, if they want this concept to work, for the love of god, why such high tolls? They don't get this high on I-64, and the lanes are beneficial here and affordable. Plus it's HOV 2+, not 3 for free travel.
I was also referring to the newer 460 bypass proposed just around Windsor, that could've easily been funded, for free. But it wasn't. Plus having higher taxes, that annual budget could increase, allowing even more projects to go forth.
That shorter US-460 bypass of Windsor would have cost over $400 million, and would have emptied out onto the old substandard 4-lane undivided US-460, and as such that much money for the limited benefits would have been unjustified, IMHO. Properly canceled.
When the HOT tolls get high that is intended to price enough traffic out of the lanes so that it will remain free flowing, that is about 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour max. Otherwise it would get bogged down into poor levels of service.
So basically, kick people out that aren't willing to pay as it continues to rise, dumping them onto the free lanes, causing even more congestion. And they are generally at $10+ during non-peak hours, which lots won't use them, putting them on the free 3 (south of Lorton). Back to congestion... no general purpose improvements done, few congestion relief. So like I said, a bandage to the problem, but not a full fix, which isn't coming any time soon, because this HOT lane concept which is being abused is all where it's at. Only relief mainly for the people willing to pay high, and the carpoolers, which more traffic is 1-2 people as opposed to the 3 needed. So more on the general purpose... more congestion. Got it
You haven't indicated how long you have been a Virginia resident so I don't know how much of the following you may or may not be aware...
Starting in the late 1990s Virginia spent 12 years increasing lane capacity on I-95 from Woodbridge to the Beltway before they ever did anything with HOT lanes. In hindsight the 4th lane should've gone to the Prince William Pkwy or Dale City but I assume $ was the issue.
VDOT put out for bid a 4th free lane from Garrisonville to about the Stafford Airport as an add-on to the Stafford Interchange project. The bids were too high to include it though.
VDOT is greatly expanding the capacity of free lanes in the Mile 130-133 area (VA 3 and US 17). This will eliminate a consistent source of backups in the free lanes that are regularly slow back to Garrisonville.
VDOT just spent billions to widen US 58 across the bottom of Virginia.
VDOT is working on a $2-4B project (Coalfields Expwy) in Southwestern Virginia. Given the $5.2B annual budget this can't be done all at once or even quickly.
DC and Hampton Roads are able to tax themselves above what the state does for transportation and that money must be a pass through back to those districts.
Some sort of 3-2-3 HOT lane concept south of Fredericksburg would make no sense as it isn't long before you run into people wanting to commute the opposite direction
VDOT is the toll collecting authority for the I-66 HOT lanes being built outside the beltway
Virginia bought out the tolling authority for the recent VA 164 extension to I-264
VDOT built the express lanes on the Beltway east of the Springfield Interchange as free lanes. They also got 90% of the beltway west of Springfield rebuilt for little cost as it was tied to construction of the HOT lanes there.
I-395 is getting its gap where free lanes drop for a couple miles eliminated so it will be 4 lanes throughout.
It appears that whenever a bridge along I-81 is replaced it is being replaced with a bridge wide enough to accommodate widening whenever $ becomes available to add lanes.....
My criticism of Virginia and its highway construction stuff is that after the big push to 4-lane most of the US highways in the 1970s, Virginia stopped making highway construction as big a priority. By the late 90s or early 2000s, funding was such that upkeep of existing infrastructure was barely possible. This has created a situation where a lot of stuff didn't get done that is only now getting addressed. Virginia has hundreds of substantial bridges that are 70+ years old and they are now in earnest starting to replace them.
The entire HOT lane premise is to encourage people to car pool so that you don't have to pay. Since there was extra capacity built, those willing to pay can go there too. When the price gets high its meant to be so that nobody pays it. I know that HOT tolls in NoVa are higher than most other places because that is what the market will bear. It's still way cheaper than moving close to DC. In my opinion, the I-66 HOT lanes inside the beltway don't work as well because not enough capacity was added before they started tolling, so that road is never really free-flowing to start and tolls rise much quicker and much higher.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 28, 2018, 08:36:37 PM
My criticism of Virginia and its highway construction stuff is that after the big push to 4-lane most of the US highways in the 1970s, Virginia stopped making highway construction as big a priority. By the late 90s or early 2000s, funding was such that upkeep of existing infrastructure was barely possible. This has created a situation where a lot of stuff didn't get done that is only now getting addressed. Virginia has hundreds of substantial bridges that are 70+ years old and they are now in earnest starting to replace them.
Bridges built before 1948? I see very very few, the vast majority of bridges built in the 1930s and before have long since been replaced. The two recently replaced on US-301 in Sussex County were among the few holdovers, and they carry low volumes of traffic about 2,000 AADT. The original major bridges over the James River are long since replaced, as are the old bridges over Shockoe Valley.
VDOT's annual construction budget dipped to about $700 million in the 1980s, and major tax increases in 1989 boosted that to over a billion, and I am not sure if it has been less than a billion since then, and that was a substantial sum for that time. VDOT's biggest construction priority was to complete the Interstate system, which ended in 1992 with the completion of some of the most expensive segments (I-664 and I-264 tunnels, I-464 and I-295). There have been the approx. 260 miles of Interstate and freeway widening projects that I mentioned earlier. The annual construction budget is now about $2.0 billion. As expensive as highway construction has gotten even that sum goes pretty quickly.
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 09:25:10 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 28, 2018, 08:36:37 PM
My criticism of Virginia and its highway construction stuff is that after the big push to 4-lane most of the US highways in the 1970s, Virginia stopped making highway construction as big a priority. By the late 90s or early 2000s, funding was such that upkeep of existing infrastructure was barely possible. This has created a situation where a lot of stuff didn't get done that is only now getting addressed. Virginia has hundreds of substantial bridges that are 70+ years old and they are now in earnest starting to replace them.
Bridges built before 1948? I see very very few, the vast majority of bridges built in the 1930s and before have long since been replaced. The two recently replaced on US-301 in Sussex County were among the few holdovers, and they carry low volumes of traffic about 2,000 AADT. The original major bridges over the James River are long since replaced, as are the old bridges over Shockoe Valley.
A sampling of larger ones...(source is https://bridgereports.com/va/)
US 1 Rappahannock River - 1945
VA 3 Rappahannock River - 1941
US 360 - James River - 1913
US 15/29 Bus - Rappahannock River - 1930
US 1 - S. Anna River - 1925 (widened 1937)
US 58 Bus - Smith River 1927
Some counties in Eastern Virginia (for example the Hampton Roads cities combined have about 20) don't have many bridges older than 1948 but most of the counties west of say US 15 have dozens apiece. They are not all as long as say the US 301 Nottoway River bridge but they do need to remain upright. US 11, US 60, VA 40 all have a bunch of smaller bridges that are old.
VDOT has definitely picked up the pace on replacing these vintage bridges (VA 6 for example has several 1930 bridges that have been done in the last 5 years) in the last decade.
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 01, 2018, 06:51:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 09:25:10 PM
Bridges built before 1948? I see very very few, the vast majority of bridges built in the 1930s and before have long since been replaced. The two recently replaced on US-301 in Sussex County were among the few holdovers, and they carry low volumes of traffic about 2,000 AADT. The original major bridges over the James River are long since replaced, as are the old bridges over Shockoe Valley.
A sampling of larger ones...(source is https://bridgereports.com/va/)
US 1 Rappahannock River - 1945
VA 3 Rappahannock River - 1941
US 360 - James River - 1913
US 15/29 Bus - Rappahannock River - 1930
US 1 - S. Anna River - 1925 (widened 1937)
US 58 Bus - Smith River 1927
All those have had major redeckings and have ratings that are adequate for the traffic levels. All are on business routes or what are effectively business routes (all of US-1 for example), meaning lower importance as well as very little large truck traffic. I don't have the exact figure but I will wager that 90% of the major old bridges have been replaced. Some very old bridges remain adequate structurally and trafficwise.
The US-360 bridge is the Mayos Bridge over the James River in Richmond, a historic 4-lane bridge that will be rehabbed but not replaced, and was relegated to lessor traffic status when the 6-lane Manchester Bridge opened nearby in 1972 and replaced the 2-lane 9th Street Bridge. Look at the number of modern James River bridges in the City of Richmond, I count six, the oldest is 6-lane I-95 built in 1958 but its superstructure was replaced in 2002. Others are 4-lane VA-150 in 1990, 2-lane VA-147 in 2013, VA-76 in 1973 and widened to 10 lanes in 1990, 6-lane US-1/US-301 in 1989. 34 lanes on 6 modern bridges.
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 01, 2018, 06:51:20 AM
Some counties in Eastern Virginia (for example the Hampton Roads cities combined have about 20) don't have many bridges older than 1948 but most of the counties west of say US 15 have dozens apiece. They are not all as long as say the US 301 Nottoway River bridge but they do need to remain upright. US 11, US 60, VA 40 all have a bunch of smaller bridges that are old.
VDOT has definitely picked up the pace on replacing these vintage bridges (VA 6 for example has several 1930 bridges that have been done in the last 5 years) in the last decade.
I see that many of those bridges are in the 30 to 40 foot length range. Small bridges on minor primary routes with low truck usage can remain usable for a very long time, in some cases. Large numbers of old bridges have been replaced on those routes.
I was surprised to find that the US-301 Nottoway River bridge was built in 1928, but it was adequate for the traffic and didn't become structurally weak until the last few years. Bypassed by I-95 in 1980, very low traffic and truck pct. since then.
VA 3 bridge sufficiency rating is under 10...
The US 1 Rappahannock bridge has an AADT of 36,000 and while it is not teeming with semis, it does have an issue with a lot of idling traffic sitting on it vibrating the hell out of the bridge. Some of the idling was alleviated with the recent Falmouth intersection improvement but I sit on it almost every afternoon heading the other direction.
I know these two bridges are on VDOT's radar though the US 1 bridge is still several years away from construction. This will be a colossal pain when they get to it.
I really liked the US 301 Nottoway bridge. I think it may be because the concrete railings were painted white making this very old bridge look new.
From 2006:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvahighways.com%2Fbridges%2F301nottoway-2.jpg&hash=4f266bc3813b81c1ece6f181917c0f3434fc3dee)
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 01, 2018, 10:33:55 AM
VA 3 bridge sufficiency rating is under 10...
The US 1 Rappahannock bridge has an AADT of 36,000 and while it is not teeming with semis, it does have an issue with a lot of idling traffic sitting on it vibrating the hell out of the bridge. Some of the idling was alleviated with the recent Falmouth intersection improvement but I sit on it almost every afternoon heading the other direction.
I know these two bridges are on VDOT's radar though the US 1 bridge is still several years away from construction. This will be a colossal pain when they get to it.
I really liked the US 301 Nottoway bridge. I think it may be because the concrete railings were painted white making this very old bridge look new.
Truss bridge, fisherman's railings. Maybe could have retained it or part of it as a historical site, but US-301 would have had to be relocated at least 30 feet to the west. New bridge built on same centerline.
Have you seen the Walkerton Bridge?
https://www.shothotspot.com/hotspot/king-william-county-va-usa/walkerton-bridge
The US-1 Rappahannock River bridge is in the Six-Year Program --
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1323257
Construction (CN) $43,500 FY2025
The VA-3 bridge is on Bus. VA-3, the VA-3 East-West Connector was completed in the mid-1990s, that took the majority of the traffic. So the old bridge has been bypassed and relegated to collector status.
The Bus. VA-3 Rappahannock River bridge is in the Six-Year Program --
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1335017
Construction (CN) $14,781 FY2021
So, on I-40 in Raleigh just prior to Rock Quarry Rd, there's a new BGS overhead displaying I-40 to the right, I-440 and US-64 to the left. Guess which new interstate isn't listed on the new sign? And there doesn't appear to be room to add it later. :confused:
Quote from: branched-out on March 16, 2018, 09:07:31 PM
So, on I-40 in Raleigh just prior to Rock Quarry Rd, there's a new BGS overhead displaying I-40 to the right, I-440 and US-64 to the left. Guess which new interstate isn't listed on the new sign? And there doesn't appear to be room to add it later. :confused:
Is there anyway you could take a photo of it? I'm sure it's designed somehow to add the shield in later, like if the 440 and 64 ones are spread out some, they could be moved closer and the 87 one added, etc.
Ha! As I drove past it, I *knew* I should have turned around to get a picture, but didn't have time. And I wanted to have a picture to post here, but also didn't want to wait too long.
I'll try to get a pic this weekend.
Quote from: branched-out on March 16, 2018, 09:22:44 PM
Ha! As I drove past it, I *knew* I should have turned around to get a picture, but didn't have time. And I wanted to have a picture to post here, but also didn't want to wait too long.
I'll try to get a pic this weekend.
Thanks. I don't live in that area so I wouldn't have a clue, except my last drive through there a few months ago. Lots of work on I-40 on their reconstruction project. All I know is that here in Virginia, no shield will be up any time soon :-D
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 16, 2018, 09:10:38 PM
Quote from: branched-out on March 16, 2018, 09:07:31 PM
So, on I-40 in Raleigh just prior to Rock Quarry Rd, there's a new BGS overhead displaying I-40 to the right, I-440 and US-64 to the left. Guess which new interstate isn't listed on the new sign? And there doesn't appear to be room to add it later. :confused:
Is there anyway you could take a photo of it? I'm sure it's designed somehow to add the shield in later, like if the 440 and 64 ones are spread out some, they could be moved closer and the 87 one added, etc.
Photos have been taken and posted on some NC related Facebook groups. The sign is also visible at times from the NCDOT traffic camera at Rock Quarry Road. The sign replacement plans for the I-40 Fortify project were approved several years before I-87 was designated, apparently since the signs were already made NCDOT allowed the contractor to put them up, even if outdated. There are to be replacement signs, such as on the plans below, that will be put up under a a separate project to update all the signs on US 64/264, I-40 and I-440 with I-87 shields. That project, hopefully, will be completed this year.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87signplani40ncdot917.JPG&hash=02a9436def77d1f3383e45fcc47feff9569eb608)
who wants to bet that those are up before I-285 NC signs? LOL
Quote from: bob7374 on March 16, 2018, 09:28:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 16, 2018, 09:10:38 PM
Quote from: branched-out on March 16, 2018, 09:07:31 PM
So, on I-40 in Raleigh just prior to Rock Quarry Rd, there's a new BGS overhead displaying I-40 to the right, I-440 and US-64 to the left. Guess which new interstate isn't listed on the new sign? And there doesn't appear to be room to add it later. :confused:
Is there anyway you could take a photo of it? I'm sure it's designed somehow to add the shield in later, like if the 440 and 64 ones are spread out some, they could be moved closer and the 87 one added, etc.
Photos have been taken and posted on some NC related Facebook groups. The sign is also visible at times from the NCDOT traffic camera at Rock Quarry Road. The sign replacement plans for the I-40 Fortify project were approved several years before I-87 was designated, apparently since the signs were already made NCDOT allowed the contractor to put them up, even if outdated. There are to be replacement signs, such as on the plans below, that will be put up under a a separate project to update all the signs on US 64/264, I-40 and I-440 with I-87 shields. That project, hopefully, will be completed this year.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87signplani40ncdot917.JPG&hash=02a9436def77d1f3383e45fcc47feff9569eb608)
Thanks for the info. Would've been interesting if they included "Norfolk, VA" on the 87 BGS. as that is the major control city. I hope it will at least be added from the 95 interchange and points north, especially if they want traffic to remain on 87. I remember when I-95/85 in Richmond included "Atlanta" and "Miami" as control cities a few years ago, until replaced with new signs. Honestly, shields need to advertise long-distance destinations too, ones that are hundreds of miles away, like Atlanta and Miami. I still don't get why Rocky Mount is the control city on 95 in VA, it doesn't even go through Rocky Mount, you have to exit off and take another highway into Rocky Mount.
Miami and Atlanta are still on one sign each. Atlanta is on the one between exits 54 and 53, and Miami is just past I-85.
Quote from: Takumi on March 16, 2018, 10:07:15 PM
Miami and Atlanta are still on one sign each. Atlanta is on the one between exits 54 and 53, and Miami is just past I-85.
Oh wow, I guess you're right. Shocking they put Atlanta on that new BGS just before I-85. And there's actually a few "Miami" on 95 south signs after. Still a shame they removed it at the main interchange at 85/95.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 16, 2018, 10:01:32 PMThanks for the info. Would've been interesting if they included "Norfolk, VA" on the 87 BGS. as that is the major control city. I hope it will at least be added from the 95 interchange and points north, especially if they want traffic to remain on 87.
Adding it as a control city alongside Rocky Mount at the future I-87/I-587 split in Zebulon would be the way to go IMO.
QuoteI still don't get why Rocky Mount is the control city on 95 in VA, it doesn't even go through Rocky Mount, you have to exit off and take another highway into Rocky Mount.
Exits 138 and 145 border the city limits. I'd say that's close enough. It's also the first city south of Petersburg. While Emporia is "technically" a city, in reality it's nothing more than a one-horse town with a hospital and a courthouse.
Quote from: LM117 on March 17, 2018, 07:49:27 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 16, 2018, 10:01:32 PMThanks for the info. Would've been interesting if they included "Norfolk, VA" on the 87 BGS. as that is the major control city. I hope it will at least be added from the 95 interchange and points north, especially if they want traffic to remain on 87.
Adding it as a control city alongside Rocky Mount at the future I-87/I-587 split in Zebulon would be the way to go IMO.
It would be a useless distraction at this point. Hopefully intelligence will obviate this in the future.
Quote from: LM117 on March 17, 2018, 07:49:27 AM
QuoteI still don't get why Rocky Mount is the control city on 95 in VA, it doesn't even go through Rocky Mount, you have to exit off and take another highway into Rocky Mount.
You could say the same thing about Fayetteville or Florence. Passes near the city but does not enter.
Quote from: LM117 on March 17, 2018, 07:49:27 AM
Exits 138 and 145 border the city limits. I'd say that's close enough. It's also the first city south of Petersburg. While Emporia is "technically" a city, in reality it's nothing more than a one-horse town with a hospital and a courthouse.
Big city snobbery. You could say the same thing about Elizabeth City or Williamston. When you live in a rural county even a small city is a hub for shopping, medical services, entertainment, etc.
Quote from: Beltway on March 17, 2018, 08:39:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 17, 2018, 07:49:27 AM
Exits 138 and 145 border the city limits. I'd say that's close enough. It's also the first city south of Petersburg. While Emporia is "technically" a city, in reality it's nothing more than a one-horse town with a hospital and a courthouse.
Big city snobbery. You could say the same thing about Elizabeth City or Williamston. When you live in a rural county even a small city is a hub for shopping, medical services, entertainment, etc.
Don't know why you're worked up. I simply gave a reason why Rocky Mount was used as the primary control city for I-95 South rather than Emporia. It's not like I called it a dump. I'm also very much aware of what it's like living in a rural county. I spent nearly my entire life living in rural counties. Hell, I'm living in one right now.
Quote from: LM117 on March 17, 2018, 09:30:57 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 17, 2018, 08:39:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 17, 2018, 07:49:27 AM
Exits 138 and 145 border the city limits. I'd say that's close enough. It's also the first city south of Petersburg. While Emporia is "technically" a city, in reality it's nothing more than a one-horse town with a hospital and a courthouse.
Big city snobbery. You could say the same thing about Elizabeth City or Williamston. When you live in a rural county even a small city is a hub for shopping, medical services, entertainment, etc.
Don't know why you're worked up. I simply gave a reason why Rocky Mount was used as the primary control city for I-95 South rather than Emporia. It's not like I called it a dump. I'm also very much aware of what it's like living in a rural county. I spent nearly my entire life living in rural counties. Hell, I'm living in one right now.
Danville obviously would be a city by most any measure, though, with population of 43 thousand in the city and 106 thousand in the MSA. Pittsylvania County has 63 thousand and that does not include Danville as that is an independent city. That is 5 to 10 times the examples above.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on February 20, 2018, 10:13:45 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2018, 12:11:19 AM
What it boils down to is this: NC is ready & willing to build their 90+% of the corridor's length, while VA by all indications has expressed a profound disinterest in any improvements to a Raleigh-Hampton Roads corridor. As observers, we can hash out all the pros and cons of building any Interstate-grade route between those two locations ad nauseum, but, like so many projects in so many venues, it comes down to simple political will -- NC has it and is willing to direct it to projects such as this, while VA in general does not. Whether VA's reluctance is warranted, given the almost perpetual needs of NoVA's suburb-serving network and its corresponding drain on resources, is a matter that will be germane to any attempt to plan, much less deploy, long-distance facilities elsewhere in the state (e.g., I-73). But it was likely apparent 27 years ago when the first ISTEA-related High Priority Corridors were formulated, including #13, which is now the nascent I-87. Not a direct connection by any means, but one that eventually proved politically feasible merely by its NC dominance. Over the years, pretty much most of us on this forum formulated, even within our own minds, a US 58-based Interstate connector from Hampton Roads to I-95 & I-85 to give that metro area an efficient outlet to corridors heading south (essentially filling in an obvious gap); it was the most logical and reasonable route to utilize for that purpose. Nevertheless, anyone familiar with VA political idiom likely consigned such a corridor to their own "fictional" compendium, realizing that the likelihood of it actually being done were slim & none. NC became the beneficiary of that equation; they had their own row to hoe -- US 64 east of Raleigh -- and were more than willing to incorporate that within the overall "corridor to Norfolk" plan, since it had been built as a freeway (albeit not to Interstate criteria) out as far as Tarboro. Hardly by coincidence, the section of 64 from Tarboro to US 17 does meet Interstate standards, being built after 1991, when HPC 13 was adopted. I-87 isn't just a newfangled and fanciful way to divert traffic and possibly business to northeast NC; this plan has been fomenting within NC circles for a long while; they just "pounced" in 2016, coincidentally (maybe) at the quarter-century anniversary of the corridor's inception.
As long as publicly-funded transportation facilities and the policy issues surrounding them remain a political football, things (shit?) like this will invariably happen. Ironically, VA's long-noted commonwealth status may actually be the "saving grace" of that state's short portion of this corridor; from the cites earlier in the thread, Chesapeake may actually be more interested in upgrading their portion than the state itself; it'll be interesting (and possibly amusing) to watch this play out.
Pretty much. Everyone agrees I-95/US 58 is the shorter/better route, but Virginia will not make that a full interstate route and North Carolina knows that people program their GPS devices to follow all interstates, so it's a no brainer North Carolina would push for their route thanks to the void Virginia left.
Waze will try and keep you on interstates as much as it can... I take SR 19 from Orlando to Jacksonville area ant Waze will desperately try and route me back to I-4/95 routing, when it finally gives up the eta drops 10 minutes
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on March 17, 2018, 11:50:05 PM
Waze will try and keep you on interstates as much as it can... I take SR 19 from Orlando to Jacksonville area ant Waze will desperately try and route me back to I-4/95 routing, when it finally gives up the eta drops 10 minutes
Z981
I've noticed the opposite; it will try to send you down very minor roads, and it is VERY sensitive to congestion.
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2018, 01:32:24 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on April 01, 2018, 10:19:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2018, 01:32:24 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2018, 11:42:28 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: sprjus4To 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.
Quote(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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.msg2305600#msg2305600). 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.
Quote from: froggie on April 02, 2018, 08:50:49 AM
Quote from: sprjus4To 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.
Quote(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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.msg2305600#msg2305600). 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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2018, 08:22:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 02, 2018, 08:50:49 AM
I did the number crunching for this upthread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.msg2305600#msg2305600). 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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2018, 08:22:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on April 02, 2018, 09:00:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2018, 08:22:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 02, 2018, 08:50:49 AM
I did the number crunching for this upthread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.msg2305600#msg2305600). 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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2018, 08:22:03 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2018, 09:03:45 PM
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.
WHY is it named I-87?
Makes no sense...
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2018, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2018, 02:48:09 PM
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!
Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2018, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2018, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2018, 02:48:09 PM
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.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 10, 2018, 07:00:39 PM
..........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.
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
Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2018, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2018, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2018, 02:48:09 PM
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. :bigass:
Quote from: CanesFan27 on April 10, 2018, 10:27:27 PM
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.
Quote from: slorydn1 on April 11, 2018, 03:40:09 AM
So, to sum this up succinctly, SCOURN scorned I-89, picked I-87, earning SCOURN much scorn from us. :bigass:
Very punny!!!!!!!! :biggrin: :) :sombrero: :cool:
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
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.
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2018, 07:42:22 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2018, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2018, 07:42:22 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2018, 07:10:36 PM
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
According to this article, there's a chance that more projects could be added to NCDOT's STIP as a result of the recent Build NC Bond Act if the bond funds are made available by the end of the year.
https://m.thecoastlandtimes.com/2018/07/10/widened-us-64-edges-closer-to-reality/ (https://m.thecoastlandtimes.com/2018/07/10/widened-us-64-edges-closer-to-reality/)
North Carolina's plans to build I-87 have caused Virginians to give a lot of new consideration to the US 58 corridor, which could/should/might be upgraded. Fascinating stuff, really, but it ought to be in the Mid-Atlantic Forum.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 11, 2018, 05:58:04 PM
North Carolina's plans to build I-87 have caused Virginians to give a lot of new consideration to the US 58 corridor, which could/should/might be upgraded. Fascinating stuff, really, but it ought to be in the Mid-Atlantic Forum.
Since there's no even number in the 50s that is currently used, maybe they could number it I-58? After all, this was done for I-41 and I-74!
Quote from: Henry on July 12, 2018, 10:25:39 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 11, 2018, 05:58:04 PM
North Carolina's plans to build I-87 have caused Virginians to give a lot of new consideration to the US 58 corridor, which could/should/might be upgraded. Fascinating stuff, really, but it ought to be in the Mid-Atlantic Forum.
Since there's no even number in the 50s that is currently used, maybe they could number it I-58? After all, this was done for I-41 and I-74!
Not gonna happen. Virginia is not interested in new interstates.
As for I-87, I suspect that NCDOT is aware of that fact and still plans to complete I-87 since the state line also acts as Chesapeake city limits, which would also mean that it would still technically give eastern NC an interstate link to Hampton Roads, even without VA finishing it's part. I'm not defending it, but that seems to be the rationale.
Quote from: LM117 on July 12, 2018, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: Henry on July 12, 2018, 10:25:39 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 11, 2018, 05:58:04 PM
North Carolina's plans to build I-87 have caused Virginians to give a lot of new consideration to the US 58 corridor, which could/should/might be upgraded. Fascinating stuff, really, but it ought to be in the Mid-Atlantic Forum.
Since there's no even number in the 50s that is currently used, maybe they could number it I-58? After all, this was done for I-41 and I-74!
Not gonna happen. Virginia is not interested in new interstates.
As for I-87, I suspect that NCDOT is aware of that fact and still plans to complete I-87 since the state line also acts as Chesapeake city limits, which would also mean that it would still technically give eastern NC an interstate link to Hampton Roads, even without VA finishing it's part. I'm not defending it, but that seems to be the rationale.
It's likely that NCDOT's "strategy" is to finish I-87 right to the line, which, if any increase in traffic -- particularly the commercial variety -- results in problems at the "chokepoints" (read at-grade intersections) along US 17 in Chesapeake, will prompt that city to take point on any measures to upgrade that route to a full freeway. The saving grace is that for the most part the ROW is in place except for space required for interchange ramps -- and it's a relatively short distance. Also -- that situation will occur several decades into the future -- so circumstances (revenue availability among them) might change. As far as building out US 58 is concerned -- if it hasn't happened as of yet, the likelihood -- given all else -- of it occurring in the near term is miniscule.
Other than the US-17 intersections at Dominion Commons and Grassfield High School, nothing else on Chesapeake US-17 will warrant building an interchange for at least 20 years and maybe 30. It is already a 4-lane limited access highway south of there.
Quote from: LM117 on July 12, 2018, 10:55:11 AM
Not gonna happen. Virginia is not interested in new interstates.
They would have had one if not for the malfeasance of Governor MacA The Punk and his Regime, and the corrupt process used to kill the US-460 freeway project back in 2013. Could have been I-62 or I-264 extension, along with a project to upgrade the highway Suffolk to Bowers Hill.
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2018, 08:01:48 PM
Other than the US-17 intersections at Dominion Commons and Grassfield High School, nothing else on Chesapeake US-17 will warrant building an interchange for at least 20 years and maybe 30. It is already a 4-lane limited access highway south of there.
The "low field" of that assessment (20 yrs.) is probably as long as it'll take NCDOT to get their segment of I-87 completed. It's only the remaining grade intersections along Dominion that should pose any issue; the rural ones just north of the state line probably won't command much in the way of attention for the foreseeable future.
NCDOT has awarded a contract to rehab the US-17 bridges over the Dismal Swamp Canal near South Mills. Completion set for June 2019.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-11-us-17-bridges-to-get-rehabilitation-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-11-us-17-bridges-to-get-rehabilitation-work.aspx)
Even if VDOT never builds the road, if NCDOT completes all of I-87 from Raleigh to the state line, it will still connect the city to the Hampton Roads Metro. Though not to its core, but still up to its outer reaches and accessible by expressway type grade US 17.
"I-87" is part of the Interstate-insanity south of the border... :pan:
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 02:12:34 PM
"I-87" is part of the Interstate-insanity south of the border... :pan:
I-87 is the latest step in a decades-long effort to extend freeway connections to every part of North Carolina. It only looks like insanity north of the border.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 15, 2018, 01:50:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 02:12:34 PM
"I-87" is part of the Interstate-insanity south of the border... :pan:
I-87 is the latest step in a decades-long effort to extend freeway connections to every part of North Carolina. It only looks like insanity north of the border.
It looks like insanity in at least 45 other states.
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2018, 02:34:55 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 15, 2018, 01:50:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 02:12:34 PM
"I-87" is part of the Interstate-insanity south of the border... :pan:
I-87 is the latest step in a decades-long effort to extend freeway connections to every part of North Carolina. It only looks like insanity north of the border.
It looks like insanity in at least 45 other states.
Huh? Let's see; there are 50 states, and currently active Interstate expansion/extension efforts in more than 5 states:
Construction in
NC, TX, LA, AR, MS, TN, KY, IN, NV, with planning efforts in
AZ, MO (although stifled by funding issues); add to that recently (last 5 years or so) completed projects in
AL, WI, and even
NY. That's about 9 states where DOT personnel should be on the lookout for folks bearing straitjackets! :)
But seriously -- every state has its set of priorities; NC's just happens to be quite different from VA's; the ability to fund those priorities also varies greatly, with VA's being somewhat more constrained. I think the argument here is arrayed along the lines of "where you stand depends upon where you sit!" If NC has a standing freeway network program, and they elect to deploy certain corridors to Interstate standards and seek designation as such -- and they aren't doing so at the expense of maintaining what they've got (although I
do think that full 6-laning of I-95 should be among their priorities), then that's their prerogative. VA (or the NoVa MPO) has elected to restrict traffic on I-66; that's
their prerogative as well. We'll just have to see how well the various approaches fare in the longer term. Absent a cohesive national transportation policy or plan (likely impossible with the current political climate), that's what everyone has to work with -- to reiterate a modern cliche':
it is what it is!
Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2018, 04:05:04 PMIf NC has a standing freeway network program, and they elect to deploy certain corridors to Interstate standards and seek designation as such -- and they aren't doing so at the expense of maintaining what they've got (although I do think that full 6-laning of I-95 should be among their priorities), then that's their prerogative.
NCDOT is already planning on widening a stretch of I-95 to 8 lanes. They recently got a federal grant last month to help fund it. Part of that grant will also go towards upgrading US-70/Future I-42 to interstate standards.
https://governor.nc.gov/news/north-carolina-win-federal-grant-improve-i-95-us-70-eastern-north-carolina (https://governor.nc.gov/news/north-carolina-win-federal-grant-improve-i-95-us-70-eastern-north-carolina)
Quote from: LM117 on July 15, 2018, 07:18:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2018, 04:05:04 PMIf NC has a standing freeway network program, and they elect to deploy certain corridors to Interstate standards and seek designation as such -- and they aren't doing so at the expense of maintaining what they've got (although I do think that full 6-laning of I-95 should be among their priorities), then that's their prerogative.
NCDOT is already planning on widening a stretch of I-95 to 8 lanes. They recently got a federal grant last month to help fund it. Part of that grant will also go towards upgrading US-70/Future I-42 to interstate standards.
https://governor.nc.gov/news/north-carolina-win-federal-grant-improve-i-95-us-70-eastern-north-carolina (https://governor.nc.gov/news/north-carolina-win-federal-grant-improve-i-95-us-70-eastern-north-carolina)
It'd sure be a shame if I-95 were 8 lanes in some spots only to shrink back to 4 (2+2) elsewhere. Still think 6 lane overall would do the trick -- let's hope the remaining mileage outside the portion covered by the Fed grant is planned for upgrade in the foreseeable future.
6 lanes overall is not necessary, both from empirical experience and my analysis from last year on I-95 traffic volumes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257). In particular, volumes from Kenley to Wilson do not warrant widening.
The grant funding and the projects therein roughly correspond to the "yellow" areas on my analysis...areas with an overall LOS of D, though it's really THROUGH Lumbarton that needs the improvements more than the selected project which is between Lumbarton and Fayetteville.
Quote from: froggie on July 15, 2018, 10:59:24 PM
6 lanes overall is not necessary, both from empirical experience and my analysis from last year on I-95 traffic volumes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257). In particular, volumes from Kenley to Wilson do not warrant widening.
The grant funding and the projects therein roughly correspond to the "yellow" areas on my analysis...areas with an overall LOS of D, though it's really THROUGH Lumbarton that needs the improvements more than the selected project which is between Lumbarton and Fayetteville.
This is like I-81, if AADTs are averaged over all 7 days of the week, then some parts may not reach 6-lane warrants.
But using weekends is a different matter. My quote from an I-81 discussion that applies equally to NC I-95:
As I mentioned, at least 20 weekends per year, using Fri-Sun definition, no section is adequate at only 4 lanes, so that meets standards (far beyond the 30th highest hourly volume) for widening the entire route. Tennessee I-81 has exactly the same traffic issues as VA I-81, ditto for WV and MD, and PA to Harrisburg.
Look what I found on S. Smithfield Rd.
(https://imgur.com/SQJ5YbO.gif)
(https://imgur.com/vUzE0TK.gif)
Now that's a unique (read weird) way of doing trailblazer signage! One would think that with the shield array to the right, NCDOT would simply install I-87 shields at the top. Wonder if this will be a trend or simply a "one-off"! :hmmm:
They also added a lane here. The lane with the shield used to be the thru-lane to stay on S. Smithfield Rd. Here's the old Google Maps view. The triangle indicates where the shield was placed.
(https://imgur.com/ENoeKWr.gif)
I guess they figured they needed marking in the roadway to indicate what used to be a thru-lane is now a turn-only lane.
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2018, 02:23:25 PM
Now that's a unique (read weird) way of doing trailblazer signage! One would think that with the shield array to the right, NCDOT would simply install I-87 shields at the top. Wonder if this will be a trend or simply a "one-off"! :hmmm:
It definitely isn't a one-off. I've seen it with I-85 in NC and I-95 in VA.
Quote from: branched-out on August 05, 2018, 02:12:27 PM
Look what I found on S. Smithfield Rd.
(https://imgur.com/SQJ5YbO.gif)
(https://imgur.com/vUzE0TK.gif)
Nice find! :thumbsup:
I see there aren't any I-87 North signs in those pics. I take it NCDOT still hasn't finished signing the Knightdale Bypass?
Quote from: LM117 on August 05, 2018, 05:01:00 PM
Quote from: branched-out on August 05, 2018, 02:12:27 PM
Look what I found on S. Smithfield Rd.
(https://imgur.com/SQJ5YbO.gif)
(https://imgur.com/vUzE0TK.gif)
Nice find! :thumbsup:
I see there aren't any I-87 North signs in those pics. I take it NCDOT still hasn't finished signing the Knightdale Bypass?
No, only ground mounted I-87 signs, such as this, have been put up:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87southsignwith495ap917w.jpg&hash=79a2bacff5b400e0cbfb1beb91fc94adb057fb8f)
The existing I-495 signs, such as that shown, are still up and the BGSs have not been changed yet:
Two small trail blazers on I-40 at I-440 interchange on SE end.
TV stations in Raleigh are having a hard time deciding what to call the freeway heading east; they are beginning to call it I-87 in some stories, but they still call it I-495 or US 64 in others.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 06, 2018, 06:49:04 PM
TV stations in Raleigh are having a hard time deciding what to call the freeway heading east; they are beginning to call it I-87 in some stories, but they still call it I-495 or US 64 in others.
Sounds about right. They're also the same stations that claimed, 2 months ago, that Apple HQ was "imminent" but I digress...
That said, given that I-495 signs are still up with an I-87 trailblazer here and there, it's not hard to understand why Joe six-pack would get confused. Anybody have any idea when NCDOT plans to change all of the signs?
Quote from: LM117 on August 08, 2018, 08:20:42 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 06, 2018, 06:49:04 PM
TV stations in Raleigh are having a hard time deciding what to call the freeway heading east; they are beginning to call it I-87 in some stories, but they still call it I-495 or US 64 in others.
Sounds about right. They're also the same stations that claimed, 2 months ago, that Apple HQ was "imminent" but I digress...
That said, given that I-495 signs are still up with an I-87 trailblazer here and there, it's not hard to understand why Joe six-pack would get confused. Anybody have any idea when NCDOT plans to change all of the signs?
Hopefully, soon. The sign plans have been around for nearly a year. Here's a reminder of what the signs, hopefully, soon will look like (at the I-440 interchange):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87signplani440ncdot917.JPG&hash=8fbd24167a06cbc4890c05c052a5071d4e3b110e)
I just now noticed they plan to change the exit tabs as well. Interesting!
Quote from: jcarte29 on August 08, 2018, 11:24:56 PM
I just now noticed they plan to change the exit tabs as well. Interesting!
At least they planning to do it right this time and not half-ass it like they did with the I-795/US-264 overlap in Wilson. I-795 is almost 11 years old and the overlap STILL uses US-264's exit numbers and mileposts. That doesn't include their stupid decision to use Kenly as a control city for I-795 at 795/264 split instead of Wilmington.
Quote from: LM117 on August 09, 2018, 03:16:09 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on August 08, 2018, 11:24:56 PM
I just now noticed they plan to change the exit tabs as well. Interesting!
At least they planning to do it right this time and not half-ass it like they did with the I-795/US-264 overlap in Wilson. I-795 is almost 11 years old and the overlap STILL uses US-264's exit numbers and mileposts. That doesn't include their stupid decision to use Kenly as a control city for I-795 at 795/264 split instead of Wilmington.
Actually, when and if I-587 is signed, those mileposts and exit numbers will be correct; the slow pace of replacing them for I-795 might have been prescient on NCDOT's part. As far as control cities are concerned, the Kenly choice (a definite mistake) doesn't address anything along I-795 or predecessor US 117 -- but a Wilmington reference might have been premature absent a direct connector to I-40; once that's done, it'll be more than appropriate. Now -- why Goldsboro wasn't part of the mix is a mystery; for the original I-795 segment, it would be the most logical control. I'm guessing the controls for the combined 587 & 795, at least from both I-587 EB and I-95 SB, will ultimately be both Greenville and Wilmington.
You know idk why they didn't just reroute 87 over 440 and end it at I-40 by near Cary, would make was more sense and would actaully push for an I-87 extension towards the Southern Pines area.
Quote from: Mr. ENC on August 13, 2018, 09:52:37 AM
You know idk why they didn't just reroute 87 over 440 and end it at I-40 by near Cary, would make was more sense and would actaully push for an I-87 extension towards the Southern Pines area.
IIRC, I-87 is signed -- or intended to be signed -- over I-440 from the US 64/264 interchange down to the eastern I-40 interchange. Extending it down US 1 via Southern Pines to the Rockingham area is simply speculation at this time; previous efforts to place an Interstate on this particular corridor have failed.
One good thing about an I-87 extension to I-73/74 in Rockingham is that I-87 would become more of an N/S interstate. I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to consider such an extension sometime in the far future.
I'd extend Interstate 87 down the US 1 corridor. But I'm getting into fictional territory here.
Quote from: LM117 on August 14, 2018, 07:44:02 AM
One good thing about an I-87 extension to I-73/74 in Rockingham is that I-87 would become more of an N/S interstate. I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to consider such an extension sometime in the far future.
Not impossible, but there's no suggestion of this currently.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 14, 2018, 06:30:06 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 14, 2018, 07:44:02 AM
One good thing about an I-87 extension to I-73/74 in Rockingham is that I-87 would become more of an N/S interstate. I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to consider such an extension sometime in the far future.
Not impossible, but there's no suggestion of this currently.
Between the current spate of recently-minted Interstates, the ongoing 73/74 situation, and the upgrades to US 74 on both sides of Charlotte (which would be the next likely addition to the "family"), NCDOT's got quite a bit on its plate at present; I'd give it until most of the current projects are well under way before they take a serious look at anything else (of course, if local "pork politics" intervene, anything can happen!).
Damn, does this mean that all the really high exit numbers on U.S. 64 will be gone soon? I saw an Exit 514, and took Exit 496 to get to Greenville. That'd be lame to see them go.
Quote from: Gnutella on September 07, 2018, 07:42:25 AM
Damn, does this mean that all the really high exit numbers on U.S. 64 will be gone soon? I saw an Exit 514, and took Exit 496 to get to Greenville. That'd be lame to see them go.
Only between I-440 and the Rolesville Road exit east of Knightdale. All the other exit numbers from that point towards Williamston will remain for quite some time.
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2018, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on September 07, 2018, 07:42:25 AM
Damn, does this mean that all the really high exit numbers on U.S. 64 will be gone soon? I saw an Exit 514, and took Exit 496 to get to Greenville. That'd be lame to see them go.
Only between I-440 and the Rolesville Road exit east of Knightdale. All the other exit numbers from that point towards Williamston will remain for quite some time.
US 64 has exit numbers all the way out to Columbia with the highest being 562. There will be numerous 5xx exit numbers on US 64 no matter what eventually happens with I-87.
Another project proposed for Interstate 87 - "R-5869"
This project would upgrade 4 miles of US 17 to interstate standards from Wiggins Road, along the Hertford bypass, ending at US 17 Business.
Estimated to cost $200 million total, only part of it is currently funded.
An interchange at New Hope Rd, an interchange at Harvey Point Rd, and a flyover at Wynne Fork Road are funded for $60.6 million.
The rest of the 4 miles are programmed for detailed environmental study to determine the impacts of constructing any additional interchanges and access roads. The unfunded project would bring the rest of it up to interstate standards for $139.5 million.
I believe an interchange at US 17 Business on the southern end, an interchange at Wiggins Road, and frontage roads is all that's needed. I do not understand why is it projected to cost $139.5 million, but who knows these days. Any bridge replacement should not be included, as it was determined the existing bridges can be maintained.
--------
Hopefully by 2030, there will be a full interstate corridor between Virginia and Elizabeth City (possibly fully signed as I-87) and an interstate-grade bypass of Hertford. Beyond 2030, work should focus on upgrading highway between Hertford and Edenton, and constructing three new 6-8 mile freeways to link the rest together. As for existing freeways, along with all of US 64, shoulders should be widened during planned resurfacing, and should not be prioritized over any new roads/upgrades.
As for Virginia, Chesapeake should try to acquire funding to construct 4 interchanges along US 17, and construct access roads at a few locations. Then polish the corridor up to full standards and request designation for I-87. The roadway should be able to accommodate a 65-70 MPH speed limit when upgraded, and Dominion Boulevard can be 55-60 MPH.
Will NCDOT wait until all future upgrades of the corridor are completed before changing the exit numbers? I know we can't predict the future, but that seems to be the case with Interstate 540-turned-Interstate 49 in Northwestern Arkansas.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 10, 2018, 04:43:09 PM
Will NCDOT wait until all future upgrades of the corridor are completed before changing the exit numbers? I know we can't predict the future, but that seems to be the case with Interstate 540-turned-Interstate 49 in Northwestern Arkansas.
I don't know, but it sure would be nice if they would get someone out there to swap all the I-495 shields for I-87 shields, and to add more going east to US 64 Business. I mean, it's been a year now, and Interstate 495 doesn't even exist.
In my opinion, if any part gets signed as I-87, it should come with it's full features, including new exit numbers.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 10, 2018, 09:45:18 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 10, 2018, 04:43:09 PM
Will NCDOT wait until all future upgrades of the corridor are completed before changing the exit numbers? I know we can't predict the future, but that seems to be the case with Interstate 540-turned-Interstate 49 in Northwestern Arkansas.
I agree, with the condition that the exit numbers are continuous. If a section of US 64 east of I-95 gets completed before a section between the Knightdale Bypass (due to have its numbers changed whenever the I-87 signs are put up) and I-95, I don't think they'll want numbers to change back to US 64 mileposts then back to I-87's. Of course, they could change the western sections numbers at the same time before the section is upgraded so they would be continuous, but that may make too much sense for NCDOT.
I don't know, but it sure would be nice if they would get someone out there to swap all the I-495 shields for I-87 shields, and to add more going east to US 64 Business. I mean, it's been a year now, and Interstate 495 doesn't even exist.
In my opinion, if any part gets signed as I-87, it should come with it's full features, including new exit numbers.
Sort of unrelated to I-87, but relates to US 17. Between Williamston and Washington, they're currently planning an expansion of the two lane road to four lanes. This sort of counteracts the whole initiative to make US 17 a freeway throughout the entire state, as it would make more sense to simply build a freeway on new location. However, I noticed that the right of way for the proposed widening would capture between 250 - 300 feet, way more than enough for 4 lanes. Doing this however, leaves a good 60-80 feet on each side of clear land. It appears to me that the move was done intentionally to accommodate the construction of future frontage roads with the end goal of having a full controlled access facility. Smart planning on their part, IMHO. It takes somewhat unnecessary land now, however later on down the road, no more R/W would be needed, except for interchange locations. It would be interesting to see how they handle other existing 4 lane sections if a freeway upgrade does ever occur.
I must admit if that happened, I think a huge opportunity would be presented with a new major north-south interstate-grade route through eastern North Carolina. And I-87 is just one large step to that. Other projects on US 17 in NC such as the Maysville / Pollocksville Bypasses, the Hampstead Bypass, the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension, and other limited-access at-grade expressways on the route are also major steps. Now, the rest of the non-limited-access segments either need to be bypassed or upgraded one by one.
Here are the plans for the US 17 Williamston to Washington expansion, where you can clearly see the large amounts of R/W being captured -
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll3.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll4.pdf
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2018, 12:35:28 AM
Sort of unrelated to I-87, but relates to US 17. Between Williamston and Washington, they're currently planning an expansion of the two lane road to four lanes. This sort of counteracts the whole initiative to make US 17 a freeway throughout the entire state, as it would make more sense to simply build a freeway on new location. However, I noticed that the right of way for the proposed widening would capture between 250 - 300 feet, way more than enough for 4 lanes. Doing this however, leaves a good 60-80 feet on each side of clear land. It appears to me that the move was done intentionally to accommodate the construction of future frontage roads with the end goal of having a full controlled access facility. Smart planning on their part, IMHO. It takes somewhat unnecessary land now, however later on down the road, no more R/W would be needed, except for interchange locations. It would be interesting to see how they handle other existing 4 lane sections if a freeway upgrade does ever occur.
I must admit if that happened, I think a huge opportunity would be presented with a new major north-south interstate-grade route through eastern North Carolina. And I-87 is just one large step to that. Other projects on US 17 in NC such as the Maysville / Pollocksville Bypasses, the Hampstead Bypass, the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension, and other limited-access at-grade expressways on the route are also major steps. Now, the rest of the non-limited-access segments either need to be bypassed or upgraded one by one.
Here are the plans for the US 17 Williamston to Washington expansion, where you can clearly see the large amounts of R/W being captured -
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll3.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll4.pdf
Wow -- look at all the J-turns. But it
does look like this is an "economy" solution to the safety/capacity issues endemic to US 17 in that area -- but it also certainly looks like the first step in an "inverse" to the Texas-style developmental idiom whereby the frontage roads are constructed first as a conventional 4-lane highway with a median wide enough to accommodate at least 4 additional through lanes with connecting slip ramps. Here, the center lanes are constructed but with enough side ROW for future frontage roads -- and with the J-turns to accommodate local movements. A facility such as this should suffice until full limited-access is warranted; at least it is more readily upgradable than the "superstreet" concept planned elsewhere in NC.
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2018, 02:31:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2018, 12:35:28 AM
Sort of unrelated to I-87, but relates to US 17. Between Williamston and Washington, they're currently planning an expansion of the two lane road to four lanes. This sort of counteracts the whole initiative to make US 17 a freeway throughout the entire state, as it would make more sense to simply build a freeway on new location. However, I noticed that the right of way for the proposed widening would capture between 250 - 300 feet, way more than enough for 4 lanes. Doing this however, leaves a good 60-80 feet on each side of clear land. It appears to me that the move was done intentionally to accommodate the construction of future frontage roads with the end goal of having a full controlled access facility. Smart planning on their part, IMHO. It takes somewhat unnecessary land now, however later on down the road, no more R/W would be needed, except for interchange locations. It would be interesting to see how they handle other existing 4 lane sections if a freeway upgrade does ever occur.
I must admit if that happened, I think a huge opportunity would be presented with a new major north-south interstate-grade route through eastern North Carolina. And I-87 is just one large step to that. Other projects on US 17 in NC such as the Maysville / Pollocksville Bypasses, the Hampstead Bypass, the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension, and other limited-access at-grade expressways on the route are also major steps. Now, the rest of the non-limited-access segments either need to be bypassed or upgraded one by one.
Here are the plans for the US 17 Williamston to Washington expansion, where you can clearly see the large amounts of R/W being captured -
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll3.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll4.pdf
Wow -- look at all the J-turns. But it does look like this is an "economy" solution to the safety/capacity issues endemic to US 17 in that area -- but it also certainly looks like the first step in an "inverse" to the Texas-style developmental idiom whereby the frontage roads are constructed first as a conventional 4-lane highway with a median wide enough to accommodate at least 4 additional through lanes with connecting slip ramps. Here, the center lanes are constructed but with enough side ROW for future frontage roads -- and with the J-turns to accommodate local movements. A facility such as this should suffice until full limited-access is warranted; at least it is more readily upgradable than the "superstreet" concept planned elsewhere in NC.
This appears to be the standard model for new 4-lane highways in rural areas. Yes, it could support a future upgrade to a freeway, but I don't hear anyone talking about that at present.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 10, 2018, 06:00:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2018, 02:31:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2018, 12:35:28 AM
Sort of unrelated to I-87, but relates to US 17. Between Williamston and Washington, they're currently planning an expansion of the two lane road to four lanes. This sort of counteracts the whole initiative to make US 17 a freeway throughout the entire state, as it would make more sense to simply build a freeway on new location. However, I noticed that the right of way for the proposed widening would capture between 250 - 300 feet, way more than enough for 4 lanes. Doing this however, leaves a good 60-80 feet on each side of clear land. It appears to me that the move was done intentionally to accommodate the construction of future frontage roads with the end goal of having a full controlled access facility. Smart planning on their part, IMHO. It takes somewhat unnecessary land now, however later on down the road, no more R/W would be needed, except for interchange locations. It would be interesting to see how they handle other existing 4 lane sections if a freeway upgrade does ever occur.
I must admit if that happened, I think a huge opportunity would be presented with a new major north-south interstate-grade route through eastern North Carolina. And I-87 is just one large step to that. Other projects on US 17 in NC such as the Maysville / Pollocksville Bypasses, the Hampstead Bypass, the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension, and other limited-access at-grade expressways on the route are also major steps. Now, the rest of the non-limited-access segments either need to be bypassed or upgraded one by one.
Here are the plans for the US 17 Williamston to Washington expansion, where you can clearly see the large amounts of R/W being captured -
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll3.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll4.pdf
Wow -- look at all the J-turns. But it does look like this is an "economy" solution to the safety/capacity issues endemic to US 17 in that area -- but it also certainly looks like the first step in an "inverse" to the Texas-style developmental idiom whereby the frontage roads are constructed first as a conventional 4-lane highway with a median wide enough to accommodate at least 4 additional through lanes with connecting slip ramps. Here, the center lanes are constructed but with enough side ROW for future frontage roads -- and with the J-turns to accommodate local movements. A facility such as this should suffice until full limited-access is warranted; at least it is more readily upgradable than the "superstreet" concept planned elsewhere in NC.
This appears to be the standard model for new 4-lane highways in rural areas. Yes, it could support a future upgrade to a freeway, but I don't hear anyone talking about that at present.
It is true, I've noticed a lot of the newer widenings of highways in North Carolina to include right of ways between 230 - 250 feet. It is a smart move though, as in the future if it warrants, frontage roads could be built within or slightly out of existing R/W. The US 158 widening between Belcross and NC 168 proposed will only have a 200 foot R/W. The reason US 17 stuck out to me is because it has a R/W closer to 250-300 feet, as opposed to 230-250 feet as other plans for other roads I've seen. It's not much a difference, though if frontage roads are built, there's slightly more setback, and it would all be in existing R/W.
UPDATE: I've done some reading within the Environmental Assessment for this project, and apparently the proposed right-of-way for US 17 is between 220-250 feet (in different locations), however, that does not include easements which do add slightly more room, plus existing R/W in some locations. Either way, the additional room does accommodate future expansion nonetheless. Slightly older projects from the 90s and 2000s appeared more to focus on capturing 150 feet to strictly include the widened portion. This method allows for future frontage roads to be constructed in or slightly out of existing R/W.
It's funny, there was a time where North Carolina choose to build widenings and upgrades to 2 lane roads as new location freeways. Just look at U.S. 64 between Tarboro and Williamston, U.S. 52 between Lexington and Winston-Salem, U.S. 220 (now I-73) in portions between Greensboro and Rockingham, and others. I still think it would've made most sense, but cost could've determined it. At least it will have a R/W capable of future upgrades, whenever it may warrant.
At least this is not the mess U.S. Route 58 was and still currently is between Hillsville and South Hill in Virginia. Billions and billions of dollars were & still are being poured into 4 lane widenings of the roadway, in hopes it would become more attractive for cross-state motorists as opposed to I-64 to I-81. The result - most thru traffic still mainly uses the I-64 to I-81 route because it is faster. When the whole mess started in the 80s and 90s, money could've been used construct the whole thing on new location as a full freeway. If it was done properly, work could've been focused in creating an interstate-grade route between Norfolk and Hillsville, which would've become a major route for east-west motorists to connect to I-81 South. It would've shaved off 30-40 minutes w/ a 70 MPH speed limit using an interstate-style US 58, and would've diverted most traffic off I-64 to I-81. Instead, there's 4 lane roads that have low traffic volumes and 55 MPH speed limits that could easily handle 65 MPH. If 65 MPH was a thing, even that would bring more traffic. I'm not saying the widenings were not necessary, I agree that the widened roads & bypasses are a lot safer now, however there was a huge opportunity which was missed, and the money that was & is still being spent for the road was improperly used IMHO.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2018, 09:07:10 PM
At least this is not the mess U.S. Route 58 was and still currently is between Hillsville and South Hill in Virginia. Billions and billions of dollars were & still are being poured into 4 lane widenings of the roadway, in hopes it would become more attractive for cross-state motorists as opposed to I-64 to I-81. The result - most thru traffic still mainly uses the I-64 to I-81 route because it is faster. When the whole mess started in the 80s and 90s, money could've been used construct the whole thing on new location as a full freeway.
They studied a "US-58 Superhighway" built to full freeway standards, but decided that it would be far too expensive, and that the future traffic projections didn't come anywhere close to needing that. Total program costs since the U.S. Route 58 Corridor Development Program was begun in 1989 I believe have not yet passed $600 million.
It never was intended for cross-state traffic in lieu of I-64 and I-81, it was developed along the concept of the other rural arterial highways that supplement the Interstate system, mainly in order to provide modern 4-lane highway service to the towns and cities and markets along the route.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 09:28:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2018, 09:07:10 PM
At least this is not the mess U.S. Route 58 was and still currently is between Hillsville and South Hill in Virginia. Billions and billions of dollars were & still are being poured into 4 lane widenings of the roadway, in hopes it would become more attractive for cross-state motorists as opposed to I-64 to I-81. The result - most thru traffic still mainly uses the I-64 to I-81 route because it is faster. When the whole mess started in the 80s and 90s, money could've been used construct the whole thing on new location as a full freeway.
They studied a "US-58 Superhighway" built to full freeway standards, but decided that it would be far too expensive, and that the future traffic projections didn't come anywhere close to needing that. Total program costs since the U.S. Route 58 Corridor Development Program was begun in 1989 I believe have not yet passed $600 million.
It never was intended for cross-state traffic in lieu of I-64 and I-81, it was developed along the concept of the other rural arterial highways that supplement the Interstate system, mainly in order to provide modern 4-lane highway service to the towns and cities and markets along the route.
As of a document from April 2016 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Route_58_with_Cover_Page.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Route_58_with_Cover_Page.pdf)), $1.4 billion was spent on U.S. Route 58 between 1989 - 2016, and another $500 million for projects proposed between FY 2017 - 2022. Like I stated before, I do agree with the need for safety improvements, but what I do disagree with is the money put into the project, close to $2 billion. For a route with such low traffic volumes, it is almost a waste. There's other important projects in the state that are fighting for that type of money, and cannot get it due to insufficient funding. Other roads w/ higher traffic volumes were built as toll roads in Richmond (VA 895), Hampton Roads (VA 168, US 17, Midtown Tunnel) that this money could've been used on.
There is a way the state can make these arterial routes more attractive however - higher speed limits. Having speeds posted as low as 55 MPH on these relatively limited-access routes drastically increases travel time unnecessarily so. Many states have adopted speed limits of 65 MPH (or higher going west) on arterial roads, West Virginia a nearby example. If interstate speeds like 65 MPH were posted on arterial highways without traffic signals, they could almost function as primary interstates, travel times would be reduced, and no large scale interstate projects would be needed. Most of the U.S. Route 58 corridor could handle these speeds, along with other highways in the state (US 29, US 17, US 460, etc) This, in turn, would attract more traffic to these routes, relieving the interstates of some congestion as new, interstate-speed routes opened up, and not costing the state much money. Many routes in the western states are like this, 70-75 MPH speed limits that are non-limited-access 4 lane highways, with interchanges and intersections, and they serve as major highways that relieve congestion on interstates. Obviously, here that would be 65 MPH, but it would still work. But VDOT complains 65 MPH is unsafe, and all highways must be 55MPH with a few 60MPH. Somehow states like West Virginia can easily handle 65 MPH on certain routes safely, but we can't.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2018, 10:38:28 PM
As of a document from April 2016 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Route_58_with_Cover_Page.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Route_58_with_Cover_Page.pdf)), $1.4 billion was spent on U.S. Route 58 between 1989 - 2016, and another $500 million for projects proposed between FY 2017 - 2022. Like I stated before, I do agree with the need for safety improvements, but what I do disagree with is the money put into the project, close to $2 billion. For a route with such low traffic volumes, it is almost a waste. There's other important projects in the state that are fighting for that type of money, and cannot get it due to insufficient funding. Other roads w/ higher traffic volumes were built as toll roads in Richmond (VA 895), Hampton Roads (VA 168, US 17, Midtown Tunnel) that this money could've been used on.
That would be 43 years of expenditures, on over 500 miles of highway. These 4-lane arterials are important long distance routes that have substantial large truck percentages, and while the traffic volumes may seem low compared to urban areas, nevertheless they have justifications for mobility and connectivity. It would operate poorly as a 2-lane highway that passed thru towns and cities.
I use several Richmond toll roads regularly but the area also has a large system of toll-free Interstates and freeways, as does Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.
US-58 was deemed an economically stagnant corridor when the project was initiated in the 1980s and that was part of the justification for the funding.
Quote from: sprjus4Many states have adopted speed limits of 65 MPH (or higher going west) on arterial roads, West Virginia a nearby example.
Since you mention West Virginia, it should be noted that their arterials have far more rigorous access-control standards than Virginia's or North Carolina's. Specifically, most (if not all) of their ARC corridor 4-lane upgrades prohibit private driveway access.
Quote from: froggie on October 11, 2018, 12:06:53 AM
Quote from: sprjus4Many states have adopted speed limits of 65 MPH (or higher going west) on arterial roads, West Virginia a nearby example.
Since you mention West Virginia, it should be noted that their arterials have far more rigorous access-control standards than Virginia's or North Carolina's. Specifically, most (if not all) of their ARC corridor 4-lane upgrades prohibit private driveway access.
Limited access rights-of-way. Virginia's 75 arterial bypasses total about 350 miles and the vast majority have limited access rights-of-way, and legislatively they are authorized for as high as 70 mph.
I did some traveling in Alabama over the summer and US 280 from Columbus, GA to Opelika, AL is a 4 lane divided highway with no access control and the Speed Limit is 65 with plenty of driveways attached to it. Even more impressive was the fact that the road still held a 65 MPH when there was no median!!!
Also, in heavy commercial zones in Opelika (near I-85) and thru Alexander City the speed limit only drops to 50-55.
Could higher speed limits on 4 lane (non-freeway) highway be the reason that Mazda/Toyota picked Alabama over NC for their new plant earlier this year?
Quote from: RoadPelican on October 11, 2018, 11:57:47 AM
I did some traveling in Alabama over the summer and US 280 from Columbus, GA to Opelika, AL is a 4 lane divided highway with no access control and the Speed Limit is 65 with plenty of driveways attached to it. Even more impressive was the fact that the road still held a 65 MPH when there was no median!!!
Also, in heavy commercial zones in Opelika (near I-85) and thru Alexander City the speed limit only drops to 50-55.
Could higher speed limits on 4 lane (non-freeway) highway be the reason that Mazda/Toyota picked Alabama over NC for their new plant earlier this year?
Quote from: froggie on October 11, 2018, 12:06:53 AM
Quote from: sprjus4Many states have adopted speed limits of 65 MPH (or higher going west) on arterial roads, West Virginia a nearby example.
Since you mention West Virginia, it should be noted that their arterials have far more rigorous access-control standards than Virginia's or North Carolina's. Specifically, most (if not all) of their ARC corridor 4-lane upgrades prohibit private driveway access.
Access control or not, most of these roads can easily handle 65 MPH in a lot of places. Cheaper, safety upgrades could be done on other portions to bring them up to standards. As long as lane widths are 12 feet, it has a shoulder of at least 4-8 feet, curves that are not sharp, and sight visibility is clear, it could easily handle it. Many portions of the Virginia Arterial Highway Network is like this, or could easily be upgraded to this with low costs. Mobility would be increased with a 5-10 MPH speed increase, usage on these roads could increase slightly, and serve as viable alternate routes to the interstate.
Like RoadPelican mentioned, Alabama (along with a lot of other southern & western states) have speed limits up to 65 MPH on non-limited-access highways. Portions newer to the system (US 58 widened in the last 20-30 years, US 17 in Chesapeake (which is limited-access), and others) can definitely handle those speeds safely. I do not understand why Virginia (even North Carolina as well) have restrictions for these speeds. A lot of drivers (including trucks, especially on 58) do 65-70 MPH, and can easily handle the speed. Increasing it would meet the driving habits of most drivers, and allower a smoother flow with close speeds as opposed to 55-70 variations. Just because it doesn't meet standards to be "a limited access freeway" does not mean it cannot handle interstate speeds. U.S. Route 17, a limited-access 4-lane roadway (the north part is actually a freeway, while the southern portion is almost a freeway, but with just a few at grade intersections and no driveways) is posted at 55 MPH. It feels like you're doing 45 if you actually drive the speed limit. Most drivers do 60-65. U.S. Route 58 between Norfolk - Emporia, South Hill - Martinsville, and the newer widened portions feel like you're driving slower. There's a point between 65 and 70 MPH which is a comfortable speed for most drivers. Virginia Route 168, which IS a freeway, is posted at 55 MPH. It has grade-separations and interchanges, and again, most drivers do 60-65. I've actually been told by Chesapeake it's because "the design speeds of the ramps do not allow 60 MPH or higher". That one gave me a laugh. Look at any substandard 70 MPH freeway in the country, or hell, any non-limited-access highway posted at 65 MPH or higher where you physically have to come to a near stop to turn off.
Quote from: RoadPelican on October 11, 2018, 11:57:47 AMCould higher speed limits on 4 lane (non-freeway) highway be the reason that Mazda/Toyota picked Alabama over NC for their new plant earlier this year?
I seriously doubt it. Incentives played a factor, as well as the fact that suppliers were already well-established in that region. NC never really stood a chance in that regard.
I think I may have an answer to why there has been no new overhead signage put up for I-87 from I-40 to Rolesville Road. I was perusing the RFP for the I-40 widening design-build contract and in the signing section it is noted that the contractor for that project is responsible for putting up most of the I-87 the signs. From page 305:
"The Design-Build Team shall install all I-87 off-site signing located outside jurisdictional resources prior to, or concurrent with, beginning construction on I-5111 or I-4739. All signing work along the I-87 corridor within a jurisdictional resource shall be (1) included in the DesignBuild Team's permit application for the I-5111 / I-4739 / U-6093 project; and (2) shall not be installed prior to issuance of the environmental permits. (Reference the Environmental Permits
Scope of Work found elsewhere in this RFP).
The Design-Build Team shall design, fabricate and install multi-lane crossroad signing, as shown
in Figures 2D-11, 2D-13 and 2D-14 of the MUTCD, for the following I-87 interchanges:
- Poole Road
- New Hope Road
- Hodge Road
- Smithfield Road
- Wendell Falls Parkway
- US 64 Business / Wendell Boulevard
- Rolesville Road
The Design-Build Team shall (also) design, fabricate and install mile markers at 1/2-mile intervals
along both sides of the I-87 corridor....
The completion of the work required for Intermediate Contract Time #16 shall be defined as having all the I-87 off-site signing located outside jurisdictional resources installed.
The Completion Date for ICT #16 shall ... not be later than July 31, 2019."
So the signing should be up by the middle of next year, if not sooner. The signage on I-40 itself will need to be changed due to new ramp locations, this is why that interchange is not mentioned. Don't know about the I-440 / I-87 exit signing, but I assume that those signs will go up around the same time.
If one is interesting in reading the RFP:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Design%20Build%20Program/I-5111%20and%20I-4739/I-5111%20I-4739%20U-6093%20Final%20RFP%20with%20Addendum%20No%201%20wdisclaimer.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Design%20Build%20Program/I-5111%20and%20I-4739/I-5111%20I-4739%20U-6093%20Final%20RFP%20with%20Addendum%20No%201%20wdisclaimer.pdf)
The feasibility study is finally completed for US 17. It is expected to cost between $849.7 - $945.2 million to upgrade all 79 miles to a controlled-access interstate.
Currently, 40 miles of US 17 are fully funded to be upgraded, or is already a freeway, and 39 miles are currently not freeway / not funded.
Prioritization should be focused on getting funding to upgrade the non-freeway segments to interstate standards, then finally going back and funding upgrades the existing freeways.
Here's the study - https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/us-17-final-draft-study.pdf
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 25, 2018, 06:36:26 PM
The feasibility study is finally completed for US 17. It is expected to cost between $849.7 - $945.2 million to upgrade all 79 miles to a controlled-access interstate.
I don't believe that figure, that is a very low-balled figure for that kind of road construction.
^^ Unless NCDOT has gone through and paved them since I left Norfolk, much of that existing freeway mileage lacks Interstate-standard paved shoulders. Like the E-City bypass, for example.
Much of the mileage is nonlimited-access highway. Not at all easy to upgrade to a freeway.
Quote from: froggie on November 25, 2018, 08:21:06 PM
^^ Unless NCDOT has gone through and paved them since I left Norfolk, much of that existing freeway mileage lacks Interstate-standard paved shoulders. Like the E-City bypass, for example.
The freeway bypasses currently do not have shoulders, however those are planned to be added with resurfacing projects in the next 10 years since they are graded to have them.
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 09:57:38 PM
Much of the mileage is nonlimited-access highway. Not at all easy to upgrade to a freeway.
Out of the 79 miles, only 31 miles are non-limited-access, and only 13 miles would be upgraded. The rest would be bypassed on new-location segments, costing approx. $450 million.
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 08:14:36 PM
I don't believe that figure, that is a very low-balled figure for that kind of road construction.
49 miles of the 79 are currently non-freeway facilities. 18 miles of that, however, have limited-access (no driveways). That leaves 31 miles that needs to be built on new location or upgraded w/ frontage roads. It is proposed that 18 miles will be built on new location, costing about $450 million (using $25 mil per mile) Another $400-425 million would upgrade 31 miles (18 limited-access, 13 w/ driveways) to freeway, by constructing frontage roads/interchanges (the non-limited-access sections to be upgraded do not have many businesses/homes on them). The rest would add shoulders to existing freeways, which will be done with resurfacing projects in the next 10 years.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2018, 06:00:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 25, 2018, 08:21:06 PM
^^ Unless NCDOT has gone through and paved them since I left Norfolk, much of that existing freeway mileage lacks Interstate-standard paved shoulders. Like the E-City bypass, for example.
The freeway bypasses currently do not have shoulders, however those are planned to be added with resurfacing projects in the next 10 years since they are graded to have them.
That will take quite more than a resurfacing project. Typical shoulder design for Interstate highway is 6 inches of aggregate base and 6 inches of asphalt pavement above. 10-foot right shoulder and 4-foot left shoulder. That is a STIP project(s).
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2018, 06:00:55 PM
Out of the 79 miles, only 31 miles are non-limited-access, and only 13 miles would be upgraded. The rest would be bypassed on new-location segments, costing approx. $450 million.
49 miles of the 79 are currently non-freeway facilities. 18 miles of that, however, have limited-access (no driveways). That leaves 31 miles that needs to be built on new location or upgraded w/ frontage roads. It is proposed that 18 miles will be built on new location, costing about $450 million (using $25 mil per mile) Another $400-425 million would upgrade 31 miles (18 limited-access, 13 w/ driveways) to freeway, by constructing frontage roads/interchanges (the non-limited-access sections to be upgraded do not have many businesses/homes on them). The rest would add shoulders to existing freeways, which will be done with resurfacing projects in the next 10 years.
There are two major river bridges. Probably at least $25 to $30 million per mile -average- for the 49 miles of non-freeway, up to $1.5 billion. Certain short segments could be much higher (think $430 million for 5 miles of Dominion Blvd. in Chesapeake).
The shoulder upgrades on the freeways will probably add another $150 to $200 million.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 10:47:48 AM
That will take quite more than a resurfacing project. Typical shoulder design for Interstate highway is 6 inches of aggregate base and 6 inches of asphalt pavement above. 10-foot right shoulder and 4-foot left shoulder. That is a STIP project(s).
North Carolina has done a method of paving over shoulders with resurfacing projects in the past, one example is along I-73, and also planned on the U.S. 70 freeways for Future I-42. All the highways already have the grading and strength requirements for a full 10 foot shoulder, it just simply lacks the pavement. The highways also have a 4 foot paved left shoulder, along with 4 feet of pavement on the right side.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 10:47:48 AM
There are two major river bridges. Probably at least $25 to $30 million per mile -average- for the 49 miles of non-freeway, up to $1.5 billion. Certain short segments could be much higher (think $430 million for 5 miles of Dominion Blvd. in Chesapeake).
The shoulder upgrades on the freeways will probably add another $150 to $200 million.
The two long bridges have already been determined they will not be replaced (at least in this round of projects), those sections will be exempt from meeting interstate standards. All of them currently have 12 foot lanes, and 4 feet of shoulder. Dominion Blvd cost $345 million and it upgraded almost 4 miles of roadway to a controlled-access freeway, built 3 urban interchanges, and constructed two 95 foot bridges over the Elizabeth River. The bridges cost the most, the remainder upgrades cost at most $100-125 million. Rural upgrades cost way less. It's also important to note it's in an urban environment, and was only a 2 lane road. Right of way costs and higher construction costs helped to increase the price. The dead Southeastern Parkway project now has an estimate of almost $5 billion because of the heavy wetland impacts, and urban environment.
As for I-87 costs, only the new segments would cost $25-30 million per mile. The upgraded segments will be closer to $15-20 million per mile. The funded upgrade of US 17 between Virginia and Elizabeth City are capped at $180 million for 13 miles. About $13 million per mile in that case. I do agree that overall it would be at $1 billion, but I wouldn't assume higher than that. Still, with all of the freeway construction NCDOT has funded, and the heavy interest in the project down there, it will eventually all get built. Chesapeake could submit to Smart Scale or fund themselves interchanges along 17, a couple frontage roads, and request VDOT and AASHTO to sign it as I-87 to connect it to I-64. Chesapeake has heavy interest in the project, as they're actively trying to get business down that corridor, and is currently failing. Having it as a major interstate to the south would definitely help get that business. Sure, trucks to I-95 / I-85 may not use it as much, but US 17 would become a larger route, as the first 80-90 miles would be at 70 MPH, speeding trucks down that way. NCDOT is also widening more 2-lane portions south of where US 17 would split off to a 4-lane divided highway.
The NC US-17 shoulder unpaved areas appear to be grass with no aggregate base. Like I said, for Interstate highway, 6 inches of aggregate base and 6 inches of asphalt pavement above. Virginia has been installing full shoulders on some of its 4-lane rural highways in maintenance resurfacing projects, but that is a much thinner design than Interstate, considerably lower AADTs and large truck percentages. I would consider the installation of an Interstate shoulder where there is now grass, would need a STIP project, not something that would be done in a maintenance resurfacing project.
Rural construction for excavation, grading, pavement, bridges and drainage, really isn't much less costwise than that of urban for those items. Those costs cited sound like 2018 costs, and on the low end or maybe even bare bones estimates. They should inflation factor them out to the years when they will plausibly be built. Exempting major bridges from meeting Interstate standards doesn't sound like a proper way to build an Interstate highway., or could be a way to knock $300-500 million off of the estimates.
Southern Chesapeake in the area along the rural parts of US-17 is nearly all gigantic farms, I don't think they have any interest in selling it for other businesses. The Dismal Swamp Canal is a hard western limit on any development to the west of US-17.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 06:10:49 PM
The NC US-17 shoulder unpaved areas appear to be grass with no aggregate base. Like I said, for Interstate highway, 6 inches of aggregate base and 6 inches of asphalt pavement above. Virginia has been paving full shoulders on some of its 4-lane rural highways in maintenance resurfacing projects, but that is a much thinner design than Interstate. I would consider the installation of an Interstate shoulder where there is now grass, would need a STIP project, not something that would be done in a maintenance resurfacing project.
Rural construction for excavation, grading, pavement, bridges and drainage, really isn't much less costwise than that of urban for those items. Those costs cited sound like 2018 costs, and on the low end or maybe even bare bones estimates. They should inflate them out to the years when they will plausibly be built. Exempting major bridges from meeting Interstate standards doesn't sound like a proper way to build an Interstate highway., or could be a way to knock $300-500 million off of the estimates.
I do agree it does not look shoulder ready, however they've paved over shoulders that look similar on sections of what is now Interstate 73, and it will soon be paved over on U.S. 70 freeway sections to make way for Interstate 42 in Mid-Eastern North Carolina. As for the bridges, there is no need to replace perfectly fine bridges just to have shoulders. For about 20 years, I-64 on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel did not have shoulders, and certain bridges on I-95, I-85, I-64, and other interstates in Virginia lack shoulders. One example are the ones finally being replaced now in Emporia on I-95, also I-85 over Lake Gaston. I've seen others all over the state, and also all over the country. The bridges on Future Interstate 87 may be replaced one day, but now they're doing fine. Adding hundreds of millions just have shoulders is completely unreasonable. The other non-standard smaller bridges will be replaced though, as they are way cheaper to replace.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 06:10:49 PM
Southern Chesapeake in the area along the rural parts of US-17 is nearly all gigantic farms, I don't think they have any interesting in selling for other businesses.
The huge farm tract between Ballahack Rd and the North Carolina border is planned to become a major megasite. City Council is voting on that decision to begin a study next month, which will most likely pass. An interchange has also been discussed at that location for the megasite, or at Ballahack Rd. Also, the Grassfield area south of the Cedar Road interchange, stretching all the way down to Business 17, is planned to become a huge development with businesses, apartments, condos, industry, etc., a second "Greenbrier". It was studied in a 300+ page "Dominion Blvd Corridor Study" a couple years ago, and the consideration of a US 17 interstate was mentioned several times. They've already started construction of many homes down in that area, and are continuing. It may not be successful now, but if Chesapeake gets its wish of I-87, it will surely get somewhere.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2018, 06:26:48 PM
I do agree it does not look shoulder ready, however they've paved over shoulders that look similar on sections of what is now Interstate 73, and it will soon be paved over on U.S. 70 freeway sections to make way for Interstate 42 in Mid-Eastern North Carolina. As for the bridges, there is no need to replace perfectly fine bridges just to have shoulders. For about 20 years, I-64 on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel did not have shoulders, and certain bridges on I-95, I-85, I-64, and other interstates in Virginia lack shoulders. One example are the ones finally being replaced now in Emporia on I-95, also I-85 over Lake Gaston. I've seen others all over the state, and also all over the country. The bridges on Future Interstate 87 may be replaced one day, but now they're doing fine. Adding hundreds of millions just have shoulders is completely unreasonable. The other non-standard smaller bridges will be replaced though, as they are way cheaper to replace.
I would have to see what was done on those other highways, but based on my own VDOT road design experience this would be a lot more than just maintenance resurfacing, that is just delivering trucks of asphalt to the site and running a paving machine. The grass shoulders would need major earth grading with a motorgrader, placement of aggregate base and grading of that, and then at least two lifts of asphalt placed on top of that; that over many miles is a major project that belongs in the STIP.
The original HRBT spans were built pre-Interstate era and did not have full shoulders, and the shoulders were added in the 1990s as you note. The parallel HRBT spans were built with full shoulders and that opened in 1976.
I am aware of the other bridges you mentioned, and they were of the very early Interstate era in design, like pre-1965, and the Emporia Bypass was the first segment completed in 1959. Any such Interstate bridge built after 1980 certainly has full shoulders, the biggest examples in Virginia would be the I-295 James River Bridge and the I-664 trestles.
The bridges don't necessarily have to be replaced, they can be widened; in any event if they don't include that in these estimates, then important structures are not being upgraded to current Interstate highway standards.
The 2+ miles of US-17 over wetlands near Williamston looks like it needs to be upgraded to meet current Interstate highway standards. The embankment looks like it needs to be at least 70 feet wider, and that is nearly impossible in today's environmental standards, so that means that they would need to build a 2+ mile long bridge over the wetlands for an Interstate standard highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2018, 06:26:48 PM
The huge farm tract between Ballahack Rd and the North Carolina border is planned to become a major megasite. City Council is voting on that decision to begin a study next month, which will most likely pass. An interchange has also been discussed at that location for the megasite, or at Ballahack Rd. Also, the Grassfield area south of the Cedar Road interchange, stretching all the way down to Business 17, is planned to become a huge development with businesses, apartments, condos, industry, etc., a second "Greenbrier". It was studied in a 300+ page "Dominion Blvd Corridor Study" a couple years ago, and the consideration of a US 17 interstate was mentioned several times. They've already started construction of many homes down in that area, and are continuing. It may not be successful now, but if Chesapeake gets its wish of I-87, it will surely get somewhere.
It is controversial, with considerable opposition due to sprawl and environmental issues, and the sale has not yet occurred --
https://wtkr.com/2017/02/20/chesapeake-residents-voicing-concerns-over-citys-vision-for-mega-site-on-farmland/
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 08:55:34 PM
The 2+ miles of US-17 over wetlands near Williamston looks like it needs to be upgraded to meet current Interstate highway standards. The embankment looks like it needs to be at least 70 feet wider, and that is nearly impossible in today's environmental standards, so that means that they would need to build a 2+ mile long bridge over the wetlands for an Interstate standard highway.
The designs shown from the feasibility study indicate that this section would simply be widened to include full 12 foot lanes and 10 foot shoulders, and replace every bridge with slightly longer and higher bridges. (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/us-17-segment-2.pdf). The study estimates this section would only cost under $70 million to complete. Just curious, what requirement is there that the embankment would have to be wider? An interstate cross section traversing those wetlands with controlled-access right of way and 70 MPH speed limits seems to work fine.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 08:55:34 PM
It is controversial, with considerable opposition due to sprawl and environmental issues, and the sale has not yet occurred --
https://wtkr.com/2017/02/20/chesapeake-residents-voicing-concerns-over-citys-vision-for-mega-site-on-farmland/
Many citizens in the city (myself included) are opposed to the project, there's even a petition out with over 700 signatures. However, the City Council has a habit of receiving lots of opposition on development projects, ignoring it, and still approving it. Planning Commission here voted unanimously in favor to study it (despite lots of opposition), and City Council next month will most likely vote to pursue a full study. Also, the Grassfield area development is also located off U.S. 17 in more northern location and that is also an area the future interstate would bring growth too. Slowly but surely, the development will creep south if this whole megasite does not work out and Chesapeake gets its wish of an Interstate 87.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2018, 09:30:34 PM
The designs shown from the feasibility study indicate that this section would simply be widened to include full 12 foot lanes and 10 foot shoulders, and replace every bridge with slightly longer and higher bridges. (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/us-17-segment-2.pdf). The study estimates this section would only cost under $70 million to complete. Just curious, what requirement is there that the embankment would have to be wider? An interstate cross section traversing those wetlands with controlled-access right of way and 70 MPH speed limits seems to work fine.
How much higher does the roadway need to be to prevent flooding? Raise it 3 or 4 feet and that will have a big impact on the width of the embankment. Part of the crossing only has about 25 foot median. The side slopes seem steep enough that they could be subject to erosion if not made flatter.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2018, 09:30:34 PM
Many citizens in the city (myself included) are opposed to the project, there's even a petition out with over 700 signatures. However, the City Council has a habit of receiving lots of opposition on development projects, ignoring it, and still approving it. Planning Commission here voted unanimously in favor to study it (despite lots of opposition), and City Council next month will most likely vote to pursue a full study. Also, the Grassfield area development is also located off U.S. 17 in more northern location and that is also an area the future interstate would bring growth too. Slowly but surely, the development will creep south if this whole megasite does not work out and Chesapeake gets its wish of an Interstate 87.
Chesapeake is a big area and bigger in size than VA Beach. I question the need to significantly develop the southern half and maybe they need a Green Line like they have in VA Beach.
Did you say that the VA I-85 bridges over the lake at MP 3 are being widened for full shoulders?
I haven't been down there recently and I don't see that project on the VDOT projects site.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 09:45:51 PM
How much higher does the roadway need to be to prevent flooding? Raise it 3 or 4 feet and that will have a big impact on the width of the embankment. Part of the crossing only has about 25 foot median. The side slopes seem steep enough that they could be subject to erosion if not made flatter.
I don't know information regarding raising the road, that would be something figured out later on when and if an upgrade project ever goes forward. I'm sure that will be looked at. As for the small median, guard rail can be placed in the median to secure it. The Emporia Bypass on I-95 is similar to this, lined with guard rail due to a small median.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 09:45:51 PM
Chesapeake is a big area and bigger in size than VA Beach. I question the need to significantly develop the southern half and maybe they need a Green Line like they have in VA Beach.
I definitely agree that the southern half doesn't need to be developed. But the city is persistent to wanting to allow it. There is currently a line between "suburban" and "rural", but this project would obviously defy it. Another concern among many citizens is that North Carolina residents would benefit from it more than Virginia residents because it's right on the state line. It's cheaper to live in North Carolina and work in Virginia than actually living & working in Virginia.
The Grassfield and "Dominion Blvd Corridor Study" areas fall into "Suburban", that's where the city wants apartments, condos, industry, workplaces, etc.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2018, 01:36:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 09:45:51 PM
How much higher does the roadway need to be to prevent flooding? Raise it 3 or 4 feet and that will have a big impact on the width of the embankment. Part of the crossing only has about 25 foot median. The side slopes seem steep enough that they could be subject to erosion if not made flatter.
I don't know information regarding raising the road, that would be something figured out later on when and if an upgrade project ever goes forward. I'm sure that will be looked at. As for the small median, guard rail can be placed in the median to secure it. The Emporia Bypass on I-95 is similar to this, lined with guard rail due to a small median.
The I-95 Emporia Bypass is a 1959 design. Design standards from 1975 onward would specify a much wider median.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2018, 01:36:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 09:45:51 PM
Chesapeake is a big area and bigger in size than VA Beach. I question the need to significantly develop the southern half and maybe they need a Green Line like they have in VA Beach.
I definitely agree that the southern half doesn't need to be developed. But the city is persistent to wanting to allow it. There is currently a line between "suburban" and "rural", but this project would obviously defy it. Another concern among many citizens is that North Carolina residents would benefit from it more than Virginia residents because it's right on the state line. It's cheaper to live in North Carolina and work in Virginia than actually living & working in Virginia.
The Grassfield and "Dominion Blvd Corridor Study" areas fall into "Suburban", that's where the city wants apartments, condos, industry, workplaces, etc.
It is also south of the Northwest River. The city needs to listen to its residents on this matter, IMHO.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 09:45:51 PM
The I-95 Emporia Bypass is a 1959 design. Design standards from 1975 onward would specify a much wider median.
I know, but so weren't these older roads. A road that was upgraded to an interstate later on can have a smaller median with proper median protections. Parts of the U.S. 64 freeway around Nashville, NC off of I-95 have a 34 ft median, and lined with guardrail. That stretch will soon be apart of I-87. In Kentucky, a few of the pre-existing parkways are being signed as I-69 and they have a consistent 34 ft median, currently with no guardrail or barrier in place. New location interstates however have to comply with having a large median size, but many older freeways / roadways can be incorporated with no issues.
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 09:45:51 PM
It is also south of the Northwest River. The city needs to listen to its residents on this matter, IMHO.
Completely agree with you, the farm tract itself is surrounded by many wetland areas, including the Dismal Swamp. It needs to be preserved. I'm hoping that they do come through and vote against it, however based on the situation and the people we have on council, I wouldn't expect much listening to citizens and residents. Hopefully some environmental protection will find a way to fight it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2018, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 09:45:51 PM
The I-95 Emporia Bypass is a 1959 design. Design standards from 1975 onward would specify a much wider median.
I know, but so weren't these older roads. A road that was upgraded to an interstate later on can have a smaller median with proper median protections. Parts of the U.S. 64 freeway around Nashville, NC off of I-95 have a 34 ft median, and lined with guardrail. That stretch will soon be apart of I-87. In Kentucky, a few of the pre-existing parkways are being signed as I-69 and they have a consistent 34 ft median, currently with no guardrail or barrier in place. New location interstates however have to comply with having a large median size, but many older freeways / roadways can be incorporated with no issues.
Only with FHWA design exceptions and that is often controversial among highway engineers, and even then it is only done rarely. Mountainous terrain is another matter, cross sections can be narrower and design speeds can be as low as 50 mph in some cases.
Any newly designated Interstate highway should meet standards, 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. Sounds like NCDOT is compromising in at least three criteria to get the estimate down to what they announced.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2018, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 09:45:51 PM
It is also south of the Northwest River. The city needs to listen to its residents on this matter, IMHO.
Completely agree with you, the farm tract itself is surrounded by many wetland areas, including the Dismal Swamp. It needs to be preserved. I'm hoping that they do come through and vote against it, however based on the situation and the people we have on council, I wouldn't expect much listening to citizens and residents. Hopefully some environmental protection will find a way to fight it.
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.
Quote from: Beltwayand 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.
Quote from: froggie on December 01, 2018, 08:53:38 PM
Quote from: Beltwayand 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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 09:18:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 05:54:21 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2018, 11:28:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 09:18:57 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2018, 11:28:57 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 01, 2018, 11:28:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 09:18:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 01, 2018, 08:53:38 PM
Quote from: Beltwayand 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.
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2018, 07:22:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 09:18:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 01, 2018, 08:53:38 PM
Quote from: Beltwayand 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.
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 12:54:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 08:18:16 AM
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)
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 12:54:25 AM
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...
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 01:50:50 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 01:50:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 08:18:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 02, 2018, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 12:54:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 03:25:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 03:28:34 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 03:25:31 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 03:28:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 12:54:25 AM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 03:42:41 PM
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
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 02, 2018, 06:21:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 12:54:25 AM
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...
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 02, 2018, 06:21:15 PM
There's no chance of this happening. The whole idea of the I-87 proposal was to serve all the communities along US 17.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 08:01:41 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 08:21:56 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 02, 2018, 06:21:15 PM
There's no chance of this happening. The whole idea of the I-87 proposal was to serve all the communities along US 17.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 08:01:41 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 08:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 08:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 09:39:42 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 10:05:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 09:39:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 11:22:39 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 08:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 11:42:45 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2018, 11:42:45 PM
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?
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 12:22:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 12:22:31 AM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2018, 05:35:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 12:22:31 AM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2018, 05:35:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 12:22:31 AM
In the 2100 Plan?
Probably.
Then let's talk about it in 50 to 75 years.
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 08:57:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2018, 05:35:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 12:22:31 AM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2018, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 08:57:01 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2018, 09:42:17 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2018, 09:42:17 PMwill 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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 11:22:45 PM
The math would be 12 minutes, and those limits are wrong. The bypasses are about 20% of that length, and nearly all the rest of the mileage is 60 mph. So the difference might be about 6 minutes, not enough to influence things.
The first 13 miles from Virginia to Elizabeth City is the only non-freeway portion posted at 60 MPH. The rest of it is 55 MPH. Around Hertford, it is 50 MPH, and about 6 miles near Williamston and Windsor are 35 MPH.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2018, 09:42:17 PMwill 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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 11:22:45 PM
There are 31 miles of US-58 that could be posted at 70 mph per current state law, the bypasses at Courtland, Franklin and Suffolk, and US-58 between Suffolk and Bowers Hill.
Yes, Virginia law does say that a limited-access freeway can be posted as high as 70 MPH. However, the Franklin Bypass has a few curves that are cannot handle a speed that high, especially in a semi, and given the amount of traffic on the Suffolk bypass combined with a few sharper curves there, a speed that high would not be warranted. I could see at most 65 MPH posted on both freeways. The stretch between Bowers Hill and Suffolk could easily be 70 MPH (most people drive over 70 MPH on it), however currently there are at-grade intersections, so no it could not be legally. If it is ever turned into a freeway, then it could be, but knowing VDOT it will likely stay at 60 MPH, maybe 65 MPH.
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 11:22:45 PM
Your math and data has multiple flaws as shown above, and some of the data could easily change in a manner unfavorable to your computations.
Again, the existing US-64 and US-17 route is already very effective and perhaps you should ask why very few are using it between the Raleigh area and the Norfolk area, and between the Norfolk area and the southerly I-95 corridor.
The completion of the Dominion Blvd. project in 2017 was a game changer in the completion of the final link in that 4-lane corridor. It used to be a 2-lane bottleneck with a drawbridge and now it is a 4-lane freeway with a fixed high-level bridge. High capacity connection with I-64 and I-464.
The reason nobody is using it between the two points is because it is 25-30 minutes slower to go that way, and unless there is some big accident on 95 north of Rocky Mount, there would be no good reason to. I've tried the route myself, it's much slower than U.S. 58 present day. That is because most of it is 55 MPH. If it were 70 MPH, that would be different. You would see more traffic between the two points utilizing it because it would offer the same travel time as U.S. 58 and for many, have the incentive of being able to drive faster.
You may not like the concept, but that doesn't mean that it won't get used simply because it has more mileage. For most, travel time is the key, and when comparing an interstate highway and an arterial route that would both take 2 hours, taking the interstate would be the preference. There has been support for the interstate concept by the Port of Virginia, advocates in Hampton Roads, Raleigh, and the many communities along the route, and parts of it are already funded for upgrades by NCDOT. Like it or not, it is going to be built, it will have support, and it will get usage by I-95 & Raleigh bound traffic. If Virginia wants to get its game up and construct an interstate-grade U.S. 58, then it will obviously have a completely different outcome, but if this is the only interstate built, then it will be this way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 04, 2018, 12:09:30 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 11:22:45 PM
The math would be 12 minutes, and those limits are wrong. The bypasses are about 20% of that length, and nearly all the rest of the mileage is 60 mph. So the difference might be about 6 minutes, not enough to influence things.
The first 13 miles from Virginia to Elizabeth City is the only non-freeway portion posted at 60 MPH. The rest of it is 55 MPH. Around Hertford, it is 50 MPH, and about 6 miles near Williamston and Windsor are 35 MPH.
Well, ok, but as much as some people complain about speed limits, nearly all of that non-bypass mileage -could- be posted for 60 mph, and most of that 6 miles near Williamston and Windsor should be postable at 50 or 55 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 04, 2018, 12:09:30 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 11:22:45 PM
There are 31 miles of US-58 that could be posted at 70 mph per current state law, the bypasses at Courtland, Franklin and Suffolk, and US-58 between Suffolk and Bowers Hill.
Yes, Virginia law does say that a limited-access freeway can be posted as high as 70 MPH. However, the Franklin Bypass has a few curves that are cannot handle a speed that high, especially in a semi, and given the amount of traffic on the Suffolk bypass combined with a few sharper curves there, a speed that high would not be warranted. I could see at most 65 MPH posted on both freeways. The stretch between Bowers Hill and Suffolk could easily be 70 MPH (most people drive over 70 MPH on it), however currently there are at-grade intersections, so no it could not be legally. If it is ever turned into a freeway, then it could be, but knowing VDOT it will likely stay at 60 MPH, maybe 65 MPH.
The Code of Virginia says up to 70 mph on limited access highways, and a limited access highway can have at-grade intersections. That section Suffolk-Bowers Hill is a limited access highway, as it is built on a limited access right-of-way.
Other than a couple curves that might have an advisory speed of 65, those 3 bypasses could conceivably be 70 mph.
You are making ill-conceived assumptions about speed limits, about a proposal that would take at least 20 years to come to fruition. It is hard to predict what the speed limits might be then, they could be a lot closer together than what you think. It seems foolish to base massive funding decisions on something as changeable as speed limits.
It is easy to predict that Suffolk-Bowers Hill will be upgraded to full freeway standards by then.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 04, 2018, 12:09:30 AM
The reason nobody is using it between the two points is because it is 25-30 minutes slower to go that way, and unless there is some big accident on 95 north of Rocky Mount, there would be no good reason to. I've tried the route myself, it's much slower than U.S. 58 present day. That is because most of it is 55 MPH. If it were 70 MPH, that would be different. You would see more traffic between the two points utilizing it because it would offer the same travel time as U.S. 58 and for many, have the incentive of being able to drive faster.
I already demonstrated that the difference between 55 and 70 would be 12 minutes. And that much of that US-17 55 could be raised to 60. It will never remotely "offer the same travel time" no matter how much the people advocating this boondoggle wish it so.
Two new updates regarding projects on upgrading US-17 to interstate standards -
- The project to upgrade US 17 between Virginia and Elizabeth City has been unfunded due to low scoring.
- The project to upgrade US 17 on the Hertford Bypass was delayed for construction until FY 2028, and the only part that is funded for then is the two interchanges. The rest of the $140 million needed remains unfunded.
https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf
^^^^^^^^^
Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing; it likely won't be built out even in NC for a couple of decades, and unless the City of Chesapeake can and will display the will to upgrade US 17, there won't be any continuity in VA. But the reason it will eventually be built in NC is simple -- most of the corridor is there, and there's thus greater opportunity for sales of potato chips and Big Gulps and occupancy of motel rooms along its approximately 93% of the corridor. Add to that the belief held within NC circles, apparently including NCDOT, that the corridor will jump-start new commercial development within the NE NC region bisected by the route and you have all the incentive necessary to construct your unbuilt 62 miles and upgrade the substandard sections of the remainder. I-87 (still hate that designation!) is the poster child for pure political will defying conventional developmental wisdom -- and, in actuality, has been since HPC #13 was established back in 1991.
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 05:36:02 AM
Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;
On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed. A trucking corridor can expand down US-17 though, because this first 80 miles of it will be converted into a full freeway, therefore reducing travel times and opening US-17 as a comparable and competitive option to I-95 when going to places such as Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, or Charleston along the coast.
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 05:36:02 AM
it likely won't be built out even in NC for a couple of decades, and unless the City of Chesapeake can and will display the will to upgrade US 17, there won't be any continuity in VA.
It keeps getting talked about, and wanting to eventually add it to the Comprehensive Plan, but unless funding comes from either VDOT or the City, I can't see it being built in the near-future. But the interest is definitely here. A megasite proposed along the North Carolina border off US-17 (which will be I-87) is one of the big drivers of trying to get it built, because currently that megasite is almost 20 miles away from interstate access (I-64).
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 05:36:02 AM
and, in actuality, has been since HPC #13 was established back in 1991.
Correct, it seems a lot of people don't realize this. That's why the rest of US-64 beyond Tarboro was built to full interstate standards in the late 90s & early 2000s. Though the Elizabeth City (2002) and Windsor (2008) bypasses weren't which I don't know why.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 12:33:04 PM
That's why the rest of US-64 beyond Tarboro was built to full interstate standards in the late 90s & early 2000s. Though the Elizabeth City (2002) and Windsor (2008) bypasses weren't which I don't know why.
Yes, that change in standards (seen readily with GSV) corresponds with the 1991 ISTEA legislation that in part established the HPC conceptual compendium along with the first 19 corridors. Nevertheless, NCDOT seems to treat the US 64 and US 17 segments differently -- whether that can be laid to not wanting to alter previous designs for the US 17 segment (which seems dubious) or defer to local wishes and concerns (seemingly always a practice in NC) would have to be further researched. Without deviating too far into the fictional realm, the NC "master plan"
does show the entirety of US 17 as eventual full freeway; it wouldn't be too out of reason to envision an eventual
two separate Interstate corridors stemming from the HPC-13 routing -- one E-W along US 64 (and possibly extended east toward the Outer Banks as far as NCDOT wants to take it) and the N-S one along US 17. Hell, the new NC STIP revisions throw additional near-term $$ into US 17 for items corresponding to freeway upgrades.
Possibly another explanation why the US 17 freeway bypasses of the two cited towns weren't constructed to I-standards might lie with the in-state prioritization in the '00's of the I-73/74 corridor; much of the construction of what's now on the ground with that corridor occurred during that time frame; saving even a few bucks elsewhere might have meant some additional funds available to expedite the new mid-state Interstates. But again, the construction of US 64 from Tarboro to Williamston to Interstate standards after '91 attests to the eventual intent of NCDOT to seek Interstate status for their portion of the HPC #13 corridor regardless of other state plans. Even though only formalized in 2016, Raleigh-Hampton Roads -- with most of the corridor within NC -- had been fomenting for a quarter century before the actual designation process. Once could say that since the devolution of Interstate impetus to the individual states since 1973, this is what, for better or worse, what one gets!
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 12:33:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 05:36:02 AM
Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;
On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.
Baloney, any way you slice it. Do we really have to reargue this? :-(
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 12:33:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 05:36:02 AM
Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;
On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.
Baloney, any way you slice it. Do we really have to reargue this? :-(
More like
mortadella than garden-variety bologna/baloney -- there are considerably more "pork fat" globules in this one (at least the NC corridor backers hope so, if it will accrue to them!). HPC #13 -- and I-87 later on -- were and are a NC in-state enhancement -- no more, no less. Over time it'll be built, even though it may simply peter out at the VA state line. But, as I've stated upthread, this corridor may be a "stalking horse", so to speak, for more comprehensive plans for US 17 in NC; by the time any substantial construction activity occurs on that corridor, the purpose and rationale might have significantly changed, and the E-W/US 64 portion may simply be a connector east from Raleigh to that revised concept. This being NC, I certainly wouldn't be surprised by anything!
And as far as "rearguing" goes -- it comes down to NC likes new Interstates whereas VA doesn't particularly follow suit. If they did, US 58 might well be an Interstate east of I-85. It's not really a matter of we posters agreeing to disagree, it's all down to the states involved and their divergent policies. To reiterate a cliche
it is what it is!
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 02:45:34 PM
More like mortadella than garden-variety bologna/baloney -- there are considerably more "pork fat" globules in this one (at least the NC corridor backers hope so, if it will accrue to them!). HPC #13 -- and I-87 later on -- were and are a NC in-state enhancement -- no more, no less.
Folks, do you have a problem with feral hogs destroying crops and livestock on your farm or ranch?
If so, these guys at BoarBuster have an effective solution to your woes!
2 BoarBuster™ Traps Dropping at the Same Time: 45 Pigs Captured
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4oNA8ViuwI
^^^^^^^
Wonder if these folks travel around in a white Cadillac ex-ambulance/hearse with black/red logos containing a cartoon boar?
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 12:33:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 05:36:02 AM
Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;
On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.
Baloney, any way you slice it. Do we really have to reargue this? :-(
I'm not going to reargue it anymore. We both have a difference in opinions, let's simply leave it at that.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 03:24:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 12:33:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 05:36:02 AM
Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;
On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.
Baloney, any way you slice it. Do we really have to reargue this? :-(
I'm not going to reargue it anymore. We both have a difference in opinions, let's simply leave it at that.
It is not an opinion. Your route is 25 miles longer. Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.
HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 03:17:14 PM
Wonder if these folks travel around in a white Cadillac ex-ambulance/hearse with black/red logos containing a cartoon boar?
Probably a Chevrolet Blazer with black/red logos containing a cartoon boar!
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 03:24:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 12:33:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 05:36:02 AM
Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;
On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.
Baloney, any way you slice it. Do we really have to reargue this? :-(
I'm not going to reargue it anymore. We both have a difference in opinions, let's simply leave it at that.
It is not an opinion. Your route is 25 miles longer. Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.
HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.
This argument (I-87 vs. US 58/I-95) keeps everyone busy on the Forum, but the fact is, North Carolina doesn't care very much how folks get to Norfolk. The purpose of the I-87 proposal was and is to get people to Elizabeth City and other NE NC destinations.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 13, 2019, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:05:06 PM
It is not an opinion. Your route is 25 miles longer. Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.
HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.
This argument (I-87 vs. US 58/I-95) keeps everyone busy on the Forum, but the fact is, North Carolina doesn't care very much how folks get to Norfolk. The purpose of the I-87 proposal was and is to get people to Elizabeth City and other NE NC destinations.
Then I would like to see them confine it to that argument, rather than the buttressing claim for years that it would also connect Norfolk to Raleigh and I-95 South, as in "this needs to be an Interstate", when in fact a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves the corridor.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 13, 2019, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 03:24:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 12:33:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2019, 05:36:02 AM
Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;
On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.
Baloney, any way you slice it. Do we really have to reargue this? :-(
I'm not going to reargue it anymore. We both have a difference in opinions, let's simply leave it at that.
It is not an opinion. Your route is 25 miles longer. Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.
HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.
This argument (I-87 vs. US 58/I-95) keeps everyone busy on the Forum, but the fact is, North Carolina doesn't care very much how folks get to Norfolk. The purpose of the I-87 proposal was and is to get people to Elizabeth City and other NE NC destinations.
Which is why they should have just gone with an E-W corridor number.
On a side note, I wonder if VDOT would pursue extending I-87 north to take over I-464 if 87 is every complete. :hmmm:
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:34:47 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 13, 2019, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:05:06 PM
It is not an opinion. Your route is 25 miles longer. Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.
HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.
This argument (I-87 vs. US 58/I-95) keeps everyone busy on the Forum, but the fact is, North Carolina doesn't care very much how folks get to Norfolk. The purpose of the I-87 proposal was and is to get people to Elizabeth City and other NE NC destinations.
Then I would like to see them confine it to that argument, rather than the buttressing claim for years that it would also connect Norfolk to Raleigh and I-95 South, as in "this needs to be an Interstate", when in fact a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves the corridor.
The reason for the "Norfolk - Raleigh" argument is to make the corridor look attractive, in hopes to get more funding opportunity. If they just said "we want an interstate to Elizabeth City", no shot. Throw a continuous interstate designation from Norfolk - Raleigh (longer or not, that's beside the point), and you have a more attractive package.
Yes, a four-lane arterial highway serves just fine traffic wise, but you don't see any warehouses, big businesses, industry, etc. in that part of the state. Why? There's no interstate access. Interstates aren't just reserved to parallel corridors with 2 lanes. North Carolina is a good example of this, and this is in North Carolina.
Where's this argument going to be in 25 years when this thing is built and has good use?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 08:13:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:34:47 PM
Then I would like to see them confine it to that argument, rather than the buttressing claim for years that it would also connect Norfolk to Raleigh and I-95 South, as in "this needs to be an Interstate", when in fact a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves the corridor.
The reason for the "Norfolk - Raleigh" argument is to make the corridor look attractive, in hopes to get more funding opportunity. If they just said "we want an interstate to Elizabeth City", no shot. Throw a continuous interstate designation from Norfolk - Raleigh (longer or not, that's beside the point), and you have a more attractive package.
It is a very disingenuous way to promote a highway, basically a form of propaganda. Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 08:13:26 PM
Yes, a four-lane arterial highway serves just fine traffic wise, but you don't see any warehouses, big businesses, industry, etc. in that part of the state. Why? There's no interstate access. Interstates aren't just reserved to parallel corridors with 2 lanes. North Carolina is a good example of this, and this is in North Carolina.
Logical fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc. Plenty of areas around the county have Interstate access but no major businesses. At least those highways are part of the national network.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 08:13:26 PM
Where's this argument going to be in 25 years when this thing is built and has good use?
Ah yes, the attempt to build a sense of inevitability. What if it is built and 10 years later there are still no major businesses nearby.
If a modern 4-lane divided highway which in and of itself can fulfill the mission of HPC 13 can't attract businesses, then maybe those counties just aren't made for that.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.
How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
At least those highways are part of the national network.
This highway will just as well be apart of the national network as the rest of it is. Plenty of interstates take out-of-way routing to serve certain areas (in this case, eastern NC), and sometimes you have an option to take a direct path, other times you're better off staying on the interstate. In this case, it swings both ways. That was the whole intent of the original interstate system, not to run the direct path, but to serve towns and cities along the way.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
If a modern 4-lane divided highway which in and of itself can fulfill the mission of HPC 13 can't attract businesses, then maybe those counties just aren't made for that.
A reason US-17 currently doesn't have many businesses along it, it's not a big trucking route. If you enhance 80 miles of it to interstate standards, and get a shield on it, up the speed limits to 70 MPH, and get trucks down US-17 as a whole quicker, then it will get more usage, therefore more business could become interested. Connecting to I-95 from Norfolk isn't the full goal of this. US-17 down the whole coast of NC is part of it too.
I'm not going to keep arguing this, facts, opinions, etc. We have different views on this highway clearly, and bouncing back and forth with counters isn't going to do anything.
^ Truckers are a lot smarter about highways than regular people give them credit for. If it's still faster along 58/95 (and all indications are that it will continue to be, even if "I-87" is completed), they'll still take 58/95. Nevermind the lack of tolls on 58/95 whereas you now have a toll on the Steel Bridge on 17.
You may get the variable out-of-state tourist who sees the fancy new red-white-and-blue route shield, but the long-distance truckers will continue to use routes that clearly give them time advantage and a lack of tolls.
Oh...should I add that diesel is cheaper in Virginia than it is in North Carolina?
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2019, 11:03:38 PM
^ Truckers are a lot smarter about highways than regular people give them credit for. If it's still faster along 58/95 (and all indications are that it will continue to be, even if "I-87" is completed), they'll still take 58/95. Nevermind the lack of tolls on 58/95 whereas you now have a toll on the Steel Bridge on 17.
If a trucker is coming from east of the Elizabeth River, they are likely to go through the Downtown Tunnel or Midtown Tunnel, therefore paying a toll. If they chose to avoid it, they would swing around I-64 and hit the interchange with "I-87", and from that point it would only be 15 miles more, not 25. At that point, it would be quicker going down I-87 or the same.
Also, US-17 could be an option for truckers bound to Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, or Charleston as opposed to heading inland then back out, because US-17 for 80 miles would be faster.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2019, 11:03:38 PM
You may get the variable out-of-state tourist who sees the fancy new red-white-and-blue route shield
I imagine most would be this way, as the point I was trying to make before. The mileage savings isn't as big a deal for the average Joe.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.
How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?
They can withhold federal funding, refuse to sign EIS and ROD.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
At least those highways are part of the national network.
This highway will just as well be apart of the national network as the rest of it is.
It is already on the NHS, just not Interstate. Inter-regional highway in its functional role.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
Plenty of interstates take out-of-way routing to serve certain areas (in this case, eastern NC), and sometimes you have an option to take a direct path, other times you're better off staying on the interstate. In this case, it swings both ways. That was the whole intent of the original interstate system, not to run the direct path, but to serve towns and cities along the way.
Not really, the 1956 original legislation specified that the Interstate highways follow the most direct feasible routing. That was relaxed slightly around 1975.
That doesn't mean for example that I-64 should have a beeline between Staunton and Charleston, or even between Lexington and Clifton Forge. Things like mountains and mountain ranges getting in the way, and making I-77 a north-south route and I-81 a diagonal route, the efficiency of overlapping I-64 on the other two.
But the purpose was to provide national connectivity primarily and local connectivity only after the first was satisfied.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
If a modern 4-lane divided highway which in and of itself can fulfill the mission of HPC 13 can't attract businesses, then maybe those counties just aren't made for that.
A reason US-17 currently doesn't have many businesses along it, it's not a big trucking route. If you enhance 80 miles of it to interstate standards, and get a shield on it, up the speed limits to 70 MPH, and get trucks down US-17 as a whole quicker, then it will get more usage, therefore more business could become interested. Connecting to I-95 from Norfolk isn't the full goal of this. US-17 down the whole coast of NC is part of it too.
NCDOT's traffic volume map doesn't have truck percentages. :-( Trucks can get down a 4-lane divided highway fast enough, having it be a freeway wouldn't improve things much.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 11:09:06 PM
If a trucker is coming from east of the Elizabeth River, they are likely to go through the Downtown Tunnel or Midtown Tunnel, therefore paying a toll. If they chose to avoid it, they would swing around I-64 and hit the interchange with "I-87", and from that point it would only be 15 miles more, not 25. At that point, it would be quicker going down I-87 or the same.
They can use I-64 to bypass south of the city, toll free. They might save 4 or 5 miles at most, in any event those parties would be maybe 5% of the population and businesses of the region. Someone around Portsmouth or Bowers Hill would save far more than 25 miles by using US-58 and I-95.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 11:09:06 PM
Also, US-17 could be an option for truckers bound to Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, or Charleston as opposed to heading inland then back out, because US-17 for 80 miles would be faster.
Given that 80 mile distance savings and the general good quality of US-17, that already is the preferred routing for cars or trucks between SE VA and those cities.
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 12:56:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.
How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?
They can withhold federal funding, refuse to sign EIS and ROD.
They can refuse funding, but they wouldn't not sign EIS and ROD simply because "it doesn't connect directly to Norfolk". If the state funds it, then they wouldn't refuse to sign because of that.
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 12:56:02 AM
Not really, the 1956 original legislation specified that the Interstate highways follow the most direct feasible routing. That was relaxed slightly around 1975.
I-10 goes off a direct path to serve Pensacola, New Orleans, San Antonio, I-64 heads north to serve Charlottesville, I-49 in Louisiana will take a 25 mile longer route than I-10 does to go from Lafayette to New Orleans, to serve those smaller communities, etc. Those are the ones I can think of, there's plenty more. The I-49 one is recent too, and is the same scenario as I-87 is, 25 miles slower than an existing interstate routing (I-10). This has happened before, and the argument that the whole project should be shut down just because of it is a poor one to make.
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 12:56:02 AM
That doesn't mean for example that I-64 should have a beeline between Staunton and Charleston, or even between Lexington and Clifton Forge. Things like mountains and mountain ranges getting in the way, and making I-77 a north-south route and I-81 a diagonal route, the efficiency of overlapping I-64 on the other two.
Again, I-64 goes about 25 miles out of the way to serve Charlottesville as opposed to paralleling U.S. 60. And as I mentioned above, there are many examples of this across the country, newer ones and older ones.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
NCDOT's traffic volume map doesn't have truck percentages. :-( Trucks can get down a 4-lane divided highway fast enough, having it be a freeway wouldn't improve things much.
Then why did we build certain parts of the interstate system? There are many highways that have been turned into interstates that would easily serve if a four-lane highway today, if you consider traffic volumes. In your way of things, half the interstate system wouldn't exist and instead be served by four-lane highways. I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg was a perfectly fine 4-lane highway until it was upgraded to interstate in the 80s. Why did we "waste the money" when the four-lane arterial highway carried traffic just fine? It still only carries up to 30,000 AADT today, I imagine it was less back then.
And the map does include truck percentages... ? http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5f6fe58c1d90482ab9107ccc03026280
It's the "MU_PCT" and "MU_AADT" on each segment. US-17 carries up to 10% trucks.
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 12:59:12 AM
They can use I-64 to bypass south of the city, toll free. They might save 4 or 5 miles at most, in any event those parties would be maybe 5% of the population and businesses of the region. Someone around Portsmouth or Bowers Hill would save far more than 25 miles by using US-58 and I-95.
Significant amounts of traffic come from the east side of the Elizabeth River. From I-64 / I-464, using U.S. 17 to U.S. 64 to I-95 (Future I-87) is only 15 miles (not 25) more than taking U.S. 58. Combine it with the the slower speed limits of U.S. 58 and faster on I-87, and I-87 at that point is two minutes faster or the same. In this case, it still might not be the "truck route to I-95", but it will open up as an option. It's not going to be "slower" in much cases at all for HR traffic. Either the same, or maybe a min or two off. For many (not trucks), it's a convenience factor. Arterial highway, or interstate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 12:56:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.
How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?
They can withhold federal funding, refuse to sign EIS and ROD.
They can refuse funding, but they wouldn't not sign EIS and ROD simply because "it doesn't connect directly to Norfolk". If the state funds it, then they wouldn't refuse to sign because of that.
If the only perceived "justification" that FHWA can see is putative "economic development", then they can and may well refuse to sign.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 12:56:02 AM
Not really, the 1956 original legislation specified that the Interstate highways follow the most direct feasible routing. That was relaxed slightly around 1975.
I-10 goes off a direct path to serve Pensacola, New Orleans, San Antonio, I-64 heads north to serve Charlottesville, I-49 in Louisiana will take a 25 mile longer route than I-10 does to go from Lafayette to New Orleans, to serve those smaller communities, etc. Those are the ones I can think of, there's plenty more. The I-49 one is recent too, and is the same scenario as I-87 is, 25 miles slower than an existing interstate routing (I-10). This has happened before, and the argument that the whole project should be shut down just because of it is a poor one to make.
I said that it didn't have to be a beeline, just that it be optimized to follow the most direct feasible routing.
Pensacola -- very little deviation.
New Orleans -- large city and metro, and you could say that I-12 substitutes for that segment of I-10, and that I-10 thru NOLA could have been I-210 or I-6, and fully justified 1956 Interstates.
San Antonio -- large city and metro, and that area is a more optimum place for the I-10 junctions with the Interstate highways to Corpus Christi and Laredo/Mexico
Charlottesville -- I-64 is 3 miles shorter (thru routing say Richmond-Covington) by the current US-250 routing as compared to US-60, and involved the construction of at least 30 miles less new Interstate highway, takes advantage of the diagonal routing of I-81 and overlaps it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 05:19:51 PM
Again, I-64 goes about 25 miles out of the way to serve Charlottesville as opposed to paralleling U.S. 60.
Baloney, thick too!!
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
NCDOT's traffic volume map doesn't have truck percentages. :-( Trucks can get down a 4-lane divided highway fast enough, having it be a freeway wouldn't improve things much.
Then why did we build certain parts of the interstate system? There are many highways that have been turned into interstates that would easily serve if a four-lane highway today, if you consider traffic volumes. In your way of things, half the interstate system wouldn't exist and instead be served by four-lane highways. I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg was a perfectly fine 4-lane highway until it was upgraded to interstate in the 80s. Why did we "waste the money" when the four-lane arterial highway carried traffic just fine? It still only carries up to 30,000 AADT today, I imagine it was less back then.
That is a very poor example. I-95 is a national Interstate highway from Maine to Florida, and in cases like this in other places there was no way they were going to leave such a gap in the Interstate system.
Just because they didn't leave gaps in original Interstate highways like I-95, I-80, I-55 and I-75, doesn't mean that N.C. can justify a vanity Interstate highway in the 21st century.
I was a construction inspector on a part of that I-95 segment, and the highway was carrying about 18,000 AADT and it had major safety issues including the fact that the southbound roadway was only 20 feet wide and parts of it were prone to flooding, after all it was a 1930s design. $78 million for 28 miles of rural Interstate highway ... $2.8 million per mile, costs were much lower then.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 05:19:51 PM
And the map does include truck percentages... ? http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5f6fe58c1d90482ab9107ccc03026280
It's the "MU_PCT" and "MU_AADT" on each segment. US-17 carries up to 10% trucks.
Then it already -is- a major trucking corridor.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 12:59:12 AM
They can use I-64 to bypass south of the city, toll free. They might save 4 or 5 miles at most, in any event those parties would be maybe 5% of the population and businesses of the region. Someone around Portsmouth or Bowers Hill would save far more than 25 miles by using US-58 and I-95.
Significant amounts of traffic come from the east side of the Elizabeth River. From I-64 / I-464, using U.S. 17 to U.S. 64 to I-95 (Future I-87) is only 15 miles (not 25) more than taking U.S. 58. Combine it with the the slower speed limits of U.S. 58 and faster on I-87, and I-87 at that point is two minutes faster or the same. In this case, it still might not be the "truck route to I-95", but it will open up as an option. It's not going to be "slower" in much cases at all for HR traffic. Either the same, or maybe a min or two off. For many (not trucks), it's a convenience factor. Arterial highway, or interstate.
The most appropriate method is to set one point, such as downtown Norfolk, and use that as a benchmark. The average regional difference is about 25 miles, even if for a small % of motorists it might be about 5 to 7 less or 5 to 7 more miles. HPC 13 will be a lot longer, any way you slice it.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2019, 07:03:59 AM
San Antonio -- large city and metro, and that area is a more optimum place for the I-10 junctions with the Interstate highways to Corpus Christi and Laredo/Mexico.
Austin is also a large metro, the state capitol, and I-35 would have provided access to San Antonio, then to meet I-37 headed to Corpus Christi. It would've been a much more direct routing following U.S. 290.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2019, 07:03:59 AM
Baloney, thick too!!
It's 106 miles from Richmond directly to I-64's southern junction with I-81, and 128 miles via the current routing.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
NCDOT's traffic volume map doesn't have truck percentages. :-( Trucks can get down a 4-lane divided highway fast enough, having it be a freeway wouldn't improve things much.
Then why did we build certain parts of the interstate system? There are many highways that have been turned into interstates that would easily serve if a four-lane highway today, if you consider traffic volumes. In your way of things, half the interstate system wouldn't exist and instead be served by four-lane highways. I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg was a perfectly fine 4-lane highway until it was upgraded to interstate in the 80s. Why did we "waste the money" when the four-lane arterial highway carried traffic just fine? It still only carries up to 30,000 AADT today, I imagine it was less back then.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
That is a very poor example.
It's one example. Other routes had the same fate as I-95, a lot of them not national routing. One could justify those could've been improved to a modern four-lane arterial highway as opposed to interstate standards.
What about NCDOT routing I-40 down to Wilmington from its original terminus? Thru traffic from Tennessee / western NC isn't going to stay on I-40 to go to Wilmington, U.S. 74 is a much more direct routing.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
I was a construction inspector on a part of that I-95 segment, and the highway was carrying about 18,000 AADT and it had major safety issues including the fact that the southbound roadway was only 20 feet wide and parts of it were prone to flooding, after all it was a 1930s design. $78 million for 28 miles of rural Interstate highway ... $2.8 million per mile, costs were much lower then.
If it wasn't a national routing, one could say it could've simply been widened to meet 12 foot lane widths.
They are currently constructing I-69 in Texas, the existing roadway from Houston to Brownsville is a 4-lane non-limited-access arterial highway, 12 foot lanes, 10 foot right shoulders, 75 MPH speed limit, bypasses around most (the rest are going to be built soon) towns, no real safety issues, no traffic signals (except thru those few towns that are soon getting bypassed) and they are pushing for the construction of continuous frontage roads (it's Texas) and interchanges along the entire corridor to sign it as I-69. They just finished upgrading a segment south of Robstown by constructing frontage roads, and built 2 interchanges in the process.
EDIT - They are apparently going to start construction in a few years on upgrading 44 miles of currently four-lane non-limited-access highway in the middle of nowhere essentially to interstate standards by constructing freeway in the median, 11 overpasses, and all for over $500 million.Also, what about I-49 routing an indirect routing from New Orleans to Lafayette, simply to serve the towns on that southern corridor? A 4-lane arterial highway currently serves the corridor, but LADOTD seems to have no issues slowly upgrading it to interstate standards.
U.S. 93 is a 4-lane arterial highway with no traffic signals and no interruption from Las Vegas to I-40, yet they are eventually going to upgrade that to I-11.
IN 37 was a 4-lane arterial highway from Bloomington to Martinsville with a few traffic signals. They could've been simply replaced by interchanges, but INDOT went ahead and made the entire thing Interstate 69 by building interchanges in rural locations, frontage roads, etc. They are doing the same thing up to Indianapolis starting this year. About $2 billion for all this, but it's happening.
I-87 isn't the "only" route of its type, no matter how much you want to say it is. It's not "a waste" and it's not "going to be refused by FHWA" simply for the reason that four-lane arterial highways work fine and interchanges can replace signals, or that it's slightly longer to serve the communities along it.
New interstates are getting built across the country, along existing 4-lane corridors, some along 2-lane corridors, some of them divert from the direct routing to serve the communities along them, etc. We're not going to stop building them just because "four-lane arterial highways work fine".
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2019, 07:03:59 AM
The most appropriate method is to set one point, such as downtown Norfolk, and use that as a benchmark. The average regional difference is about 25 miles, even if for a small % of motorists it might be about 5 to 7 less or 5 to 7 more miles. HPC 13 will be a lot longer, any way you slice it.
Another thing I just realized to consider - take about 4-5 miles off of the estimates. The proposed freeway relocations compared to the existing route take off a few miles. A route "to be studied later" near Williamston would also take off another 3, it would cost more to NCDOT, but nonetheless would cut off another 3 if built.
So, if everything goes right, and the freeway relocations are built, and the new route near Williamston is built, these things could be assumed -
Downtown Norfolk is currently 22 miles slower taking US 17. If everything is done to reduce mileage, if, let's say 6-7 miles are taken off the existing route at the final result, that's about 15-16 miles slower from Downtown Norfolk, which at 14-15 miles is about the same time, or 1-2 mins faster taking I-87 vs. U.S. 58. From other areas, now about 10 miles, which taking I-87 would be faster for those folks.
Taking 6-7 miles off the route might not seem significant, but for some of these numbers it makes the can make the difference (for some areas) between this and U.S. 58. It's unlikely to happen, but Chesapeake in the past studied constructing a freeway between I-64 at Military Highway down to VA-168 at Hillcrest Parkway. If a leg of this highway is built to at least U.S. 17, it would open up the route to the western part of Hampton Roads, and would at that point be 20 miles slower, cutting off that 6-7 miles from reduced mileage in NC, it's actually about 14-15 miles slower.
Obviously (unless Chesapeake somehow gets that freeway, which I wouldn't say anytime soon if at all), the western part would favor U.S. 58, but the eastern part would have different options. The likelihood that those 6-7 miles get reduced from U.S. 17's mileage in NC is possible, because those steps would be needed to make it fully interstate standard.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 11:35:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2019, 07:03:59 AM
The most appropriate method is to set one point, such as downtown Norfolk, and use that as a benchmark. The average regional difference is about 25 miles, even if for a small % of motorists it might be about 5 to 7 less or 5 to 7 more miles. HPC 13 will be a lot longer, any way you slice it.
Another thing I just realized to consider - take about 4-5 miles off of the estimates. The proposed freeway relocations compared to the existing route take off a few miles. A route "to be studied later" near Williamston would also take off another 3, it would cost more to NCDOT, but nonetheless would cut off another 3 if built.
Disagree. The only significant reductions would be at Williamston and Windsor, and since those segments are freeways it would be unlikely that those bypasses would not be utilized. As a former freeway designer I would certainly not recommend it from a cost or environmental standpoint.
Actually part of the Windsor bypass is not freeway, but the river crossing segment is freeway, and that would almost be guaranteed to be utilized for the river crossing going forward as there is about 2,000 feet width of wetlands along the river, it would be unwise to build another crossing.
The mile-long Roanoke River wetlands crossing is likewise also unlikely to be relocated, also for environmental reasons.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2019, 07:03:59 AM
San Antonio -- large city and metro, and that area is a more optimum place for the I-10 junctions with the Interstate highways to Corpus Christi and Laredo/Mexico.
Austin is also a large metro, the state capitol, and I-35 would have provided access to San Antonio, then to meet I-37 headed to Corpus Christi. It would've been a much more direct routing following U.S. 290.
Austin metro had a much smaller population than San Antonio metro in 1956.
Look at the westerly access, meaning I-10 between San Antonio and Los Angeles. I-10 thru Austin would be a much longer routing to San Antonio, Corpus Christi and Laredo/Mexico.
San Antonio is the optimum place for Interstates 10, 35 and 37 to junction, and it has an Interstate beltway to help distribute the traffic.
You keep looking at small subsets rather than look at all parts.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2019, 07:03:59 AM
Baloney, thick too!!
It's 106 miles from Richmond directly to I-64's southern junction with I-81, and 128 miles via the current routing.
You need to recheck things. Downtown Richmond to I-81/I-64 at Lexington is 136 miles via the current I-64 route, and 141 miles via the US-60 routing. It took only 101 miles of new Interstate I-64 to create that routing, whereas it would have taken almost all of that 141 miles for I-64 to follow the US-60 corridor.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
That is a very poor example.
It's one example. Other routes had the same fate as I-95, a lot of them not national routing. One could justify those could've been improved to a modern four-lane arterial highway as opposed to interstate standards.
It was decided in the beginning of the Interstate program that the highways would be freeways, i.e. fully access controlled divided highways with 4 or more lanes. The mainline routes are all national highways, even shorter routes like I-66 at 75 miles long connects Washington to I-81, just for one example.
After it was decided that an Interstate highway would run from Maine to Florida, or from Norfolk to St. Louis, etc., etc., the entire route was going to be built to Interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
What about NCDOT routing I-40 down to Wilmington from its original terminus? Thru traffic from Tennessee / western NC isn't going to stay on I-40 to go to Wilmington, U.S. 74 is a much more direct routing.
Not so, at least not when the route extension was approved, much of US-74 was only 2 lanes back then, so even if shorter, not competitive.
The I-40 extension is a preferred routing between Wilmington (a port city) and the central N.C. cities of Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro and Winston-Salem. The I-40 extension also connects northern I-95 to Wilmington.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
I was a construction inspector on a part of that I-95 segment, and the highway was carrying about 18,000 AADT and it had major safety issues including the fact that the southbound roadway was only 20 feet wide and parts of it were prone to flooding, after all it was a 1930s design. $78 million for 28 miles of rural Interstate highway ... $2.8 million per mile, costs were much lower then.
If it wasn't a national routing, one could say it could've simply been widened to meet 12 foot lane widths.
See my original system Interstate general design comments above. Even if it was an intra-state Interstate, they were not going to leave that kind of gap; they are part of the national system. They would not be able to designate that segment as I-95.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
They are currently constructing I-69 in Texas, the existing roadway from Houston to Brownsville is a 4-lane non-limited-access arterial highway, 12 foot lanes, 10 foot right shoulders, 75 MPH speed limit, bypasses around most (the rest are going to be built soon) towns, no real safety issues, no traffic signals (except thru those few towns that are soon getting bypassed) and they are pushing for the construction of continuous frontage roads (it's Texas) and interchanges along the entire corridor to sign it as I-69. They just finished upgrading a segment south of Robstown by constructing frontage roads, and built 2 interchanges in the process.
I-69 is the NAFTA Superhighway from Mexico to Canada, a rightful concept to add to the original Interstate system, and it will serve many cities along the way. That addresses your comments about Indiana I-69 as well.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
Also, what about I-49 routing an indirect routing from New Orleans to Lafayette, simply to serve the towns on that southern corridor? A 4-lane arterial highway currently serves the corridor, but LADOTD seems to have no issues slowly upgrading it to interstate standards.
I-10 has serious capacity issues in the Baton Rouge area and on the segment thru the Atchafalaya River Basin (the "Swamp Expressway"), serious expansion is needed. The Southern I-49 can provide a major relief route between the NOLA area and I-10 in western Louisiana. A 30-mile section of the new US-90 freeway was recently built as a bypass of the old 2-lane US-90; it was not a complete 4-lane highway previously.
This route is entirely within Louisiana. It seems reasonable for them to pursue as one of the solutions for their state.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
U.S. 93 is a 4-lane arterial highway with no traffic signals and no interruption from Las Vegas to I-40, yet they are eventually going to upgrade that to I-11.
Long-range plans are for I-11 to connect Las Vegas (2.2 million metro population) to Phoenix (4.7 million metro population) and possibly to Tucson (1.1 million metro population). 8.0 million population. 'Nuff said!
. . . . . . .
This "I-87" is a solution in search of a problem. They are trying (actually pretending) to "solve" a "problem" in another state when they have not been asked to and when it is not needed.
US-58 is a capable enough highway to connect the Hampton Roads area to I-95 South, and on average 25 miles shorter than HPC 13. In 20 years from now it is likely there will be a continuous freeway between Holland and I-64/I-264/I-664, and perhaps more sections.
The connection of the Hampton Roads area to I-95 South, is Virginia's bailiwick, not N.C. It is their responsibility, let them handle it, don't interfere.
I-87 and I-49 South are both porky indirect routes that primarily serve points along the way.
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
It's 106 miles from Richmond directly to I-64's southern junction with I-81, and 128 miles via the current routing.
You need to recheck things. Downtown Richmond to I-81/I-64 at Lexington is 136 miles via the current I-64 route, and 141 miles via the US-60 routing. It took only 101 miles of new Interstate I-64 to create that routing, whereas it would have taken almost all of that 141 miles for I-64 to follow the US-60 corridor.
Surprised you didn't mention the I-64 routing controversy which you describe on your website (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I64_VA_Desc.html). I'm guessing sprjus4 didn't know that a "southern routing" option for I-64 went via Lynchburg and not far north of Roanoke versus going to Lexington directly (which given the Blue Ridge topography in that area, I'm not surprised they avoided the US 60 corridor). I also think it's safe to say that BPR was firm on the "northern routing" (via Charlottesville) because it saved system mileage that could be applied elsewhere.
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
Also, what about I-49 routing an indirect routing from New Orleans to Lafayette, simply to serve the towns on that southern corridor? A 4-lane arterial highway currently serves the corridor, but LADOTD seems to have no issues slowly upgrading it to interstate standards.
I-10 has serious capacity issues in the Baton Rouge area and on the segment thru the Atchafalaya River Basin (the "Swamp Expressway"), serious expansion is needed. The Southern I-49 can provide a major relief route between the NOLA area and I-10 in western Louisiana. A 30-mile section of the new US-90 freeway was recently built as a bypass of the old 2-lane US-90; it was not a complete 4-lane highway previously.
This route is entirely within Louisiana. It seems reasonable for them to pursue as one of the solutions for their state.
From my own experience, the issues across the Atchafalaya are safety-related, not capacity-related. Most of Baton Route congestion is the typical urban-area/commuting of which "I-49 South" is not going to help much (fixing the 10/110 merge would do FAR MORE for that). Through traffic with a destination in New Orleans will still find I-10 20 miles shorter than "I-49 South"-to-I-310. And the longer-distance truckers will stick with I-10 to I-12 because it's both 45 minutes shorter than "I-49 South" and also lets them avoid New Orleans traffic which is far worse than anything Baton Rouge can come up with.
That's not to say that the US 90 corridor ("I-49 South") doesn't need improvements. It has enough traffic in its own right to warrant some improvements and elimination of signals/railroad-crossings.
Quote from: froggie on January 16, 2019, 11:00:40 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
You need to recheck things. Downtown Richmond to I-81/I-64 at Lexington is 136 miles via the current I-64 route, and 141 miles via the US-60 routing. It took only 101 miles of new Interstate I-64 to create that routing, whereas it would have taken almost all of that 141 miles for I-64 to follow the US-60 corridor.
Surprised you didn't mention the I-64 routing controversy which you describe on your website (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I64_VA_Desc.html). I'm guessing sprjus4 didn't know that a "southern routing" option for I-64 went via Lynchburg and not far north of Roanoke versus going to Lexington directly (which given the Blue Ridge topography in that area, I'm not surprised they avoided the US 60 corridor). I also think it's safe to say that BPR was firm on the "northern routing" (via Charlottesville) because it saved system mileage that could be applied elsewhere.
The original I-64 northern routing plan also had a direct route between Lexington and Clifton Forge, with a mountain tunnel about a mile long near Collierstown. That was revised to the right angle turn across North Mountain so that no tunnel would be needed.
Quote from: froggie on January 16, 2019, 11:00:40 AM
From my own experience, the issues across the Atchafalaya are safety-related, not capacity-related. Most of Baton Route congestion is the typical urban-area/commuting of which "I-49 South" is not going to help much (fixing the 10/110 merge would do FAR MORE for that).
Baton Rouge could certainly benefit from a beltway or partial beltway, say an I-410 bypass.
Quote from: froggie on January 16, 2019, 11:00:40 AM
Through traffic with a destination in New Orleans will still find I-10 20 miles shorter than "I-49 South"-to-I-310. And the longer-distance truckers will stick with I-10 to I-12 because it's both 45 minutes shorter than "I-49 South" and also lets them avoid New Orleans traffic which is far worse than anything Baton Rouge can come up with.
That's not to say that the US 90 corridor ("I-49 South") doesn't need improvements. It has enough traffic in its own right to warrant some improvements and elimination of signals/railroad-crossings.
Then perhaps Southern I-49 is another vanity Interstate, but at least it is Louisiana's own vanity Interstate, and not something where they are wanting another state to participate in it.
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
You need to recheck things. Downtown Richmond to I-81/I-64 at Lexington is 136 miles via the current I-64 route, and 141 miles via the US-60 routing.
You flipped the numbers, US-60 is 136 miles, and I-64 / I-81 is 141 miles. Also, that's assuming a southern I-64 would've followed the exact path of U.S. 60 leaving Richmond. It could've taken a straighter route than U.S. 60 does, thus reducing mileage. Using the measurement tool on Google Maps, I get about 105-110 miles following a new location route north of U.S. 60, ending in Downtown Richmond.
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
It was decided in the beginning of the Interstate program that the highways would be freeways, i.e. fully access controlled divided highways with 4 or more lanes. The mainline routes are all national highways, even shorter routes like I-66 at 75 miles long connects Washington to I-81, just for one example.
So even the routes that serve little traffic are considered "national routes"? Also, if an interstate is considered a "national route", than you can call I-87 that too, even if it's longer. It links towns in eastern NC to the rest of the system, therefore it's part of it. If a "four-lane arterial highway" is fine, then those very lightly traveled interstates could've handled it too.
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
I-69 is the NAFTA Superhighway from Mexico to Canada, a rightful concept to add to the original Interstate system, and it will serve many cities along the way. That addresses your comments about Indiana I-69 as well.
Understood, but realize TXDOT is building four (4!) different I-69's, I-69E, I-69C, I-69W, and a fourth I-69 that's unnamed, to all connect into Mexico. They could build one (existing I-69E), and down near Brownsville, there's connections to where I-69W would end up via I-2. I-69W would follow an existing two lane road between Houston and Laredo, which its route already served by an interstate, I-10 and I-35.
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
Long-range plans are for I-11 to connect Las Vegas (2.2 million metro population) to Phoenix (4.7 million metro population) and possibly to Tucson (1.1 million metro population). 8.0 million population. 'Nuff said!
Hampton Roads has a population of almost 2 million, the Raleigh area is over 1 million. Plus, according to your claims about U.S. 17, a four-lane highway can handle that route just fine, with bypasses and interchanges built here and there. You've mentioned that about US-58 as well.
. . . . . . .
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
This "I-87" is a solution in search of a problem. They are trying (actually pretending) to "solve" a "problem" in another state when they have not been asked to and when it is not needed.
There was plenty of support in Hampton Roads for the project when it was talked about 5-10 years ago, HRTPO signed a resolution in support of the new interstate a few years back, and officials at the Port of Virginia and businesses around the area have also shown support. This isn't just something North Carolina wants, despite how much you'll say it is.
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
The connection of the Hampton Roads area to I-95 South, is Virginia's bailiwick, not N.C. It is their responsibility, let them handle it, don't interfere.
Once again, you're leaving out the connections to Elizabeth City, Edenton, and the other towns along the corridor. Sure, a "four-lane highway" serves traffic fine, but the interest to build I-87 for those communities is NCDOT's deal, not Virginia.
Either way, North Carolina has every right to propose a highway, and ask for a dual-state effort to build it. It's up to the other state to either reject or accept the idea. In this case, HRTPO has already signed a resolution they support the new interstate, so it's not like NCDOT is knocking at our front door.
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 12:32:23 PM
Then perhaps Southern I-49 is another vanity Interstate, but at least it is Louisiana's own vanity Interstate, and not something where they are wanting another state to participate in it.
And right now, the official designation from AASHTO is for I-87 is to run from Raleigh to the Virginia State Line, not to I-64 in Virginia. Right now, this is North Carolina's interstate, and their interstate only until Hampton Roads decides to apply for it and upgrade their part. They are not forced to participate, and currently there's been no "forcing" or "pushing" effort to get Virginia to participate, the only talks of them doing it is their own desire to, including interest from Hampton Roads businesses, Port of Virginia, and City of Chesapeake. The claim "it will connect to Hampton Roads" is very true even if VDOT doesn't build, because it will get traffic over the state line, therefore into Hampton Roads as the interstate ends. Actually, the "Virginia Beach—Norfolk—Newport News, VA—NC Metropolitan Statistical Area" includes portions of eastern NC counties, and the Combined Statistical Area for Hampton Roads also includes Elizabeth City. So one could argue, it would serve it either way.
---------------------
It seems there's some sort of bias against NCDOT and VDOT working together to build this thing, and to link every town along it together, and the two big metro areas. You've seemed to have no issues with other interstate proposals across the country as strongly as you've had with this highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
You need to recheck things. Downtown Richmond to I-81/I-64 at Lexington is 136 miles via the current I-64 route, and 141 miles via the US-60 routing.
You flipped the numbers, US-60 is 136 miles, and I-64 / I-81 is 141 miles. Also, that's assuming a southern I-64 would've followed the exact path of U.S. 60 leaving Richmond. It could've taken a straighter route than U.S. 60 does, thus reducing mileage. Using the measurement tool on Google Maps, I get about 105-110 miles following a new location route north of U.S. 60, ending in Downtown Richmond.
For some reason Google Maps doesn't always return the exact same figure, it can vary a bit, like a few miles in this case. Those are the numbers I got last time I ran it.
You would have to go "as the crow flies" to get the 106 miles that you claimed, and that is absurd to think that any highway could be built that way given topography and human development.
Fact of the matter it is 101 miles on I-64 per mileposting between I-81 at Staunton and I-95 at Bryan Park in Richmond. That is shorter than "as the crow flies" between I-81/I-64 at Lexington and I-95 in downtown Richmond. Like I said that I-64 routing took advantage of the diagonal routing of I-81, and overlaps 31 miles of it.
I have been on highway online forums since 1997, and believe me, practically any analysis about why any Interstate segment was built where it was, has already been extensively discussed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
It was decided in the beginning of the Interstate program that the highways would be freeways, i.e. fully access controlled divided highways with 4 or more lanes. The mainline routes are all national highways, even shorter routes like I-66 at 75 miles long connects Washington to I-81, just for one example.
So even the routes that serve little traffic are considered "national routes"? Also, if an interstate is considered a "national route", than you can call I-87 that too, even if it's longer. It links towns in eastern NC to the rest of the system, therefore it's part of it. If a "four-lane arterial highway" is fine, then those very lightly traveled interstates could've handled it too.
I-87 in New York is a national route even though in one state, it connects New York City to Montreal in conjunction with a Canadian freeway.
What was developed in 1944, 1956 and 1968 is indeed a nationally encompassing Interstate highway system. Just because I-80 in eastern Nevada carries low volume doesn't mean that it is not a needed part of I-80 between San Francisco and New York.
Any new Interstate route proposal needs scrutiny, high scrutiny to see if it meets the intent of the system.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
I-69 is the NAFTA Superhighway from Mexico to Canada, a rightful concept to add to the original Interstate system, and it will serve many cities along the way. That addresses your comments about Indiana I-69 as well.
Understood, but realize TXDOT is building four (4!) different I-69's, I-69E, I-69C, I-69W, and a fourth I-69 that's unnamed, to all connect into Mexico. They could build one (existing I-69E), and down near Brownsville, there's connections to where I-69W would end up via I-2. I-69W would follow an existing two lane road between Houston and Laredo, which its route already served by an interstate, I-10 and I-35.
I-35 and I-10 is not the NAFTA Superhighway, and I-69 is. I just checked the I-69 map, and I-69 has 3 border crossings, at Laredo, McAllen and Brownsville. The latter two cities are in a metro of almost 2 million people. Maybe 3 crossings are too much, but given the distance apart I can see a branch to Laredo and a branch to Brownsville.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
Long-range plans are for I-11 to connect Las Vegas (2.2 million metro population) to Phoenix (4.7 million metro population) and possibly to Tucson (1.1 million metro population). 8.0 million population. 'Nuff said!
Hampton Roads has a population of almost 2 million, the Raleigh area is over 1 million. Plus, according to your claims about U.S. 17, a four-lane highway can handle that route just fine, with bypasses and interchanges built here and there. You've mentioned that about US-58 as well.
Hampton Roads has a population of 1.6 million, and has been pointed out repeatedly this highway does not and will not compete for the connection between those two areas. You have said yourself that today it is 30 to 40 minutes longer. Given the improvements to the current route in the next 20 years or so it probably never will close the gap to much less than 30 minutes.
You may as well reconcile yourself to the fact that Norfolk and Raleigh already have an Interstate highway connection, via I-95 and I-64 thru Richmond, and before you laugh at that routing, keep in mind it diverts as much of the current US-58/I-95 traffic as will your "I-87"... basically near zero. :-(
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2019, 06:56:20 AM
The connection of the Hampton Roads area to I-95 South, is Virginia's bailiwick, not N.C. It is their responsibility, let them handle it, don't interfere.
Once again, you're leaving out the connections to Elizabeth City, Edenton, and the other towns along the corridor. Sure, a "four-lane highway" serves traffic fine, but the interest to build I-87 for those communities is NCDOT's deal, not Virginia.
What does that have to do with the connection of the Hampton Roads area to I-95 South?
Those are very small cities and towns and simply not in the needs regime for an Interstate highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
There was plenty of support in Hampton Roads for the project when it was talked about 5-10 years ago, HRTPO signed a resolution in support of the new interstate a few years back, and officials at the Port of Virginia and businesses around the area have also shown support. This isn't just something North Carolina wants, despite how much you'll say it is.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
Either way, North Carolina has every right to propose a highway, and ask for a dual-state effort to build it. It's up to the other state to either reject or accept the idea. In this case, HRTPO has already signed a resolution they support the new interstate, so it's not like NCDOT is knocking at our front door.
I attend CTB meetings and this highway proposal never gets mentioned. There is no entry on the VDOT project website. It is not in the Six-Year Program. It is not on the HRTPO long-range plan. Unfunded at VDOT, unfunded at HRTPO.
HRTAC now has a high priority project for the U.S. 460/58/13 Connector (including SPSA and Hampton Roads Executive Airport Interchanges), which would upgrade the highway to Interstate standards between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64/I-264/I-664, and the Bowers Hill Interchange has its own VDOT project for an upgrade.
HRTPO and HRTAC still have the Third Crossing full buildout as planned in 2000 (CBA 9 - extend I-564 to mid-span I-664, expand entire I-664, build Craney Island connector) in the long range program.
Nothing for upgrading US-17 in Chesapeake.
Hardly anything is found in online searches about Virginia business and political support for "I-87" other than a few newspaper articles that supposedly cited a few statements.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
And right now, the official designation from AASHTO is for I-87 is to run from Raleigh to the Virginia State Line, not to I-64 in Virginia. Right now, this is North Carolina's interstate, and their interstate only until Hampton Roads decides to apply for it and upgrade their part. They are not forced to participate, and currently there's been no "forcing" or "pushing" effort to get Virginia to participate, the only talks of them doing it is their own desire to, including interest from Hampton Roads businesses, Port of Virginia, and City of Chesapeake. The claim "it will connect to Hampton Roads" is very true even if VDOT doesn't build, because it will get traffic over the state line, therefore into Hampton Roads as the interstate ends. Actually, the "Virginia Beach—Norfolk—Newport News, VA—NC Metropolitan Statistical Area" includes portions of eastern NC counties, and the Combined Statistical Area for Hampton Roads also includes Elizabeth City. So one could argue, it would serve it either way.
North-south Hampton Roads area southern metropolitan traffic is already well served by Routes 17 and 168, 4-lane high type highways that have plenty of capacity for future growth.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
It seems there's some sort of bias against NCDOT and VDOT working together to build this thing, and to link every town along it together, and the two big metro areas. You've seemed to have no issues with other interstate proposals across the country as strongly as you've had with this highway.
I seriously ripped the initial HRBT Expansion concept that would have built a 3-lane eastbound bridge-tunnel, in effect spending over $3 billion for a project that would have only added one eastbound lane and with a tunnel that could not feasibly be widened in the future. Now it will be 4 lanes on the new eastbound bridge-tunnel. Also I was unaware that the old westbound tunnel would have its low clearance increased via removing the ceiling and installing jet fans, of course predicated by being able to remove traffic from it for at least 6 months, by shifting the traffic as new segments of the project open.
You are way too intense and driven about this .. are you an NE NC economic development lobbyist?
Most other Interstate proposals across the country are not near at hand to where I would hear much about them in the first place, so I typically don't comment. You have mentioned several and I did a bit of research on them before commenting.
Four fundamental issues that I have with this proposal, 1) false marketing about connecting Norfolk and Raleigh, 2) little else of significance east of I-95, 3) low traffic volumes, 4) already working well in the functional class of 4-lane high speed rural arterial highway, on a highway that could handle 50 to 80% more traffic and twice the truck percentages in the future.
It is a Vanity Interstate Highway.
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/01/29/Area-I-87-funds-missing-from-new-DOT-road-plan.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/01/29/Area-I-87-funds-missing-from-new-DOT-road-plan.html)
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 08:46:45 AM
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/01/29/Area-I-87-funds-missing-from-new-DOT-road-plan.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/01/29/Area-I-87-funds-missing-from-new-DOT-road-plan.html)
Probably went to pave some legislators dirt driveway, :).
Ok, I've solved the "Vanity" interstate problem, saying in the sarcastic FritzOwl vibe, reroute I-87 to Nags Head, becomes a hurricane evacuation route and NC is planning on expanding US 64 to there anyway. Make an even 3 digit spur going from Williamston to Norfolk to link with the new US 58 future Interstate. Petition FHWA to change I-87 to I-89 and have a petition for US 58 Interstate to become I-87 and NY can live with and another existing I-87, they already do with I-86, which is a vanity Interstate since it parallels I-90 and I-80 in PA.
There problem solved. :)
Also, another "Vanity" 2 digit interstate in NY and IL, I-88, both within their perspective states, both could and should be easy 3 digit candidates and then that would free 88 for somewhere more useful in the grid, say US 58 in VA or US 64 in NC.
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 10:05:01 AM
Also, another "Vanity" 2 digit interstate in NY and IL, I-88, both within their perspective states, both could and should be easy 3 digit candidates and then that would free 88
Those both connect major metro areas, and on direct routes, and IL I-88 was already a full freeway before it was designated as Interstate, and I-80 needed a relief route between Chicago and the Quad Cities; it could have remained as IL-5 but it fits with the original concept of the Interstate system.
Albany and Binghamton are not major metro areas, grew up in NE PA, Binghamton is not bigger than the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton metro area and Albany needs Schenectady and Troy to get close to being considered metropolitan and the space between the two areas is not as populated as one might think, suggest visiting the Baseball Hall of fame in Cooperstown.
Still they get to keep their I's just add a digit, I-281 for NY and I-880 for IL. They both fit the grid and based on both states losing population such a change can and should be warranted for those states with growing populations, VA and NC to receive the upgrades needed.
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 10:48:37 AM
based on both states losing population
Neither of the two states is losing population. They're just growing more slowly than the rest of the country.
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 10:50:24 AM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 10:48:37 AM
based on both states losing population
Neither of the two states is losing population. They're just growing more slowly than the rest of the country.
The Pew research center disagrees with this statement:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/12/20/eight-states-saw-population-declines-in-the-last-year
And USA Today:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/01/15/fastest-growing-and-shrinking-states-closer-look/1019429001/
Are those articles factoring in gains from immigration?
Quote from: vdeane on January 30, 2019, 01:17:44 PM
Are those articles factoring in gains from immigration?
Yes, they do.
Also projected losses of Congressional seats per 2020 census in article below, IL loses a least 1, NY loses 2, NC gains 1 and VA no change:
https://www.brennancenter.org/potential-shifts-political-power-after-2020-census
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 10:48:37 AM
Albany and Binghamton are not major metro areas, grew up in NE PA, Binghamton is not bigger than the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton metro area and Albany needs Schenectady and Troy to get close to being considered metropolitan and the space between the two areas is not as populated as one might think, suggest visiting the Baseball Hall of fame in Cooperstown.
Albany NY metro is 1.1 million population, Binghamton metro population is 250 thousand, and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton metro population is 560 thousand. Albany is a state capital and therefore a government center for the state and for the various federal division offices, and also a college and university center.
The certainly deserve to be connected by a mainline Interstate highway, and I-88 provides northerly service via I-90 to I-87 to Canada, easterly service to I-90 to Boston; and I-88 provides southerly service to I-81 all the way south including Wilkes-Barre/Scranton and not very far to Harrisburg PA which is another state capital and therefore a government center for the state and for the various federal division offices, and also a college and university center; and I-81 connects to westerly I-80.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 03:19:14 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 10:48:37 AM
Albany and Binghamton are not major metro areas, grew up in NE PA, Binghamton is not bigger than the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton metro area and Albany needs Schenectady and Troy to get close to being considered metropolitan and the space between the two areas is not as populated as one might think, suggest visiting the Baseball Hall of fame in Cooperstown.
Albany NY metro is 1.1 million population, Binghamton metro population is 250 thousand, and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton metro population is 560 thousand. Albany is a state capital and therefore a government center for the state and for the various federal division offices, and also a college and university center.
The certainly deserve to be connected by a mainline Interstate highway, and I-88 provides northerly service via I-90 to I-87 to Canada, easterly service to I-90 to Boston; and I-88 provides southerly service to I-81 all the way south including Wilkes-Barre/Scranton and not very far to Harrisburg PA which is another state capital and therefore a government center for the state and for the various federal division offices, and also a college and university center; and I-81 connects to westerly I-80.
I've heard a whole lot of NYSDOT employees say I-88 was unnecessary.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 03:19:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 04:23:16 PM
Albany NY metro is 1.1 million population, Binghamton metro population is 250 thousand, and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton metro population is 560 thousand. Albany is a state capital and therefore a government center for the state and for the various federal division offices, and also a college and university center.
The certainly deserve to be connected by a mainline Interstate highway, and I-88 provides northerly service via I-90 to I-87 to Canada, easterly service to I-90 to Boston; and I-88 provides southerly service to I-81 all the way south including Wilkes-Barre/Scranton and not very far to Harrisburg PA which is another state capital and therefore a government center for the state and for the various federal division offices, and also a college and university center; and I-81 connects to westerly I-80.
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.
Actually there was and is a 4 lane connector, NY 17, Future "Vanity" I-86, to I-87. Also Binghamton has connection via I-81 to I-90 to Albany and Canada via I-81. A lot of redundancy is there.
Going back to I-87 in NC/VA per metro areas, Raleigh 2+ million, the Tidewater just a little less. The Triangle is a biochemical research and development area and has 3 major universities and is a state capital area. The Tidewater is a major port and military area. Per the logic for I-88 in NY you purpose, I-87 in NC is justifiable and even more logical actually going to 2 different states. Granted US 58 does grant Interstate status but, at best a 3 digit, would say I-695 would be a good choice.
Also, if they ever 4 lane the CBBT tunnels, aware the plans are there and, they upgrade US 13 through the Delmarva to DE-1, theoretically the 2 87's could be joined with routing over the NJ 700 section of the NJTP to the I-95 section to NYC.
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.
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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?
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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.
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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.
Once I-87 is fully completed, it will take around the same time using either facility. It will be around 20 miles shorter taking US 58, but wouldn't save anymore time.
Currently, it's around 25 additional miles, however the proposed realignments of US 17 in North Carolina would shorten this distance by around 5 miles.
Plus, I-87 will not only provide an interstate-grade facility between the end-points, it will also link to the towns along the corridor, including Elizabeth City which is a growing city, and has military presence.
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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.
Two different states. VDOT is unwilling as of now to do a buildout to I-95. That could change in the future, but as of right now, unlikely. An NC 11 / US 13 upgrade would cost significantly more due to the fact that either A) the entire corridor would have to be built on new alignment, or B) 30+ miles of continuous frontage roads.
The NC US 17 alignment already includes 3 interstate-grade bypasses, a good portion is limited-access, and the rest can be bypassed with about 18 miles of new location or upgrades of about 10 -15 miles of frontage roads. It would also link Elizabeth City to the interstate system, a growing city and one of the largest in northeastern NC. Also connections of NC 11 / US 13 into Virginia are complicated. About 10-15 miles of new freeway would be required (which is impossible in Virginia it seems). US 17 is already a fully limited-access 4-lane roadway in Virginia, and part of it 4-lane urban freeway linking to I-64.
No additional travel time would be added on traveling NC I-87 when completed as opposed to US 58. It's simply preference - are you willing to drive slightly more milage and have an interstate-grade drive at 70 MPH, no driveways, no stop lights, etc, or slow down to 60 MPH, and 45 - 35 MPH through developed areas near Suffolk and Emporia and go a 15-20 mile shorter route. Some would take the first option, others would take the second. It will open up options, where currently US 58 is the only efficient corridor.
Additionally, it's important to note this is for North Carolina's benefit to link Elizabeth City to both Norfolk and Raleigh via interstate-grade roadway, and a benefit for both provide an interstate-grade roadway south out of Hampton Roads, provide both areas with 2 mainline interstates, and grow the areas between. Interstates don't always take the shortest route possible, as in the case of NC 11 / US 13, they go a little further to serve towns and cities on the route.
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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.
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 03:19:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 04:23:16 PM
Albany NY metro is 1.1 million population, Binghamton metro population is 250 thousand, and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton metro population is 560 thousand. Albany is a state capital and therefore a government center for the state and for the various federal division offices, and also a college and university center.
The certainly deserve to be connected by a mainline Interstate highway, and I-88 provides northerly service via I-90 to I-87 to Canada, easterly service to I-90 to Boston; and I-88 provides southerly service to I-81 all the way south including Wilkes-Barre/Scranton and not very far to Harrisburg PA which is another state capital and therefore a government center for the state and for the various federal division offices, and also a college and university center; and I-81 connects to westerly I-80.
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. :D
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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?
I do agree though that it's true I-87 will provide an alternate route, and traffic relief on I-95.
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 30, 2019, 01:17:44 PM
Are those articles factoring in gains from immigration?
Yes, they do.
Also projected losses of Congressional seats per 2020 census in article below, IL loses a least 1, NY loses 2, NC gains 1 and VA no change:
https://www.brennancenter.org/potential-shifts-political-power-after-2020-census
Found the flaw: the articles are only looking at one year. One of them even shows that each of the states listed as "shrinking" actually gained population over a 10 year period, it just didn't emphasize that point because it doesn't fit the narrative they want to tell.
Losing Congressional seats doesn't mean much because the House is capped at 435 members, so they represent a percent, not raw numbers.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:07:10 PM
Once I-87 is fully completed, it will take around the same time using either facility. It will be around 20 miles shorter taking US 58, but wouldn't save anymore time.
And if the improvements were made to a shorter route, you'd save even more time.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:07:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
I-95 to US 58 is a faster way to get between I-87's endpoints, even after I-87 is fully built.
Once I-87 is fully completed, it will take around the same time using either facility. It will be around 20 miles shorter taking US 58, but wouldn't save anymore time.
Currently, it's around 25 additional miles, however the proposed realignments of US 17 in North Carolina would shorten this distance by around 5 miles.
No such proposed realignments would do that. VI-87 would be 25 miles longer than the current route.
AGAIN, you are assuming that there will be no upgrades to US-58, when in fact 4 major projects are already in the pipeline, and there will be more in the future.
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).
Four fundamental issues that I have with this proposal, 1) fraudulent marketing about connecting Norfolk and Raleigh, 2) little else of significance east of I-95, 3) low traffic volumes, 4) already working well in the functional class of 4-lane high speed rural arterial highway, on a highway that could handle 50 to 80% more traffic and twice the truck percentages in the future.
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: 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. :D
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?
I never realized that the US Virgin Islands route system and Hawaii's system use such similar numbering: 2-4 digits based on importance, and the first digit indicates which island.
However, there is no VI 87, unless Wikipedia's list is incomplete.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 08:42:20 PM
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".
You have your opinions, and I have mine. Can we just agree on that?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 08:25:26 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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?
I do agree though that it's true I-87 will provide an alternate route, and traffic relief on I-95.
Here you go:
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/06/28/CSX-renews-plans-for-new-terminal.html
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 08:25:26 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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?
I do agree though that it's true I-87 will provide an alternate route, and traffic relief on I-95.
Here you go:
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/06/28/CSX-renews-plans-for-new-terminal.html
Sort of sandwiched in between I-95 and Future I-87. Should be good for both routes, a perfect location IMO.
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 08:36:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:07:10 PM
Once I-87 is fully completed, it will take around the same time using either facility. It will be around 20 miles shorter taking US 58, but wouldn't save anymore time.
And if the improvements were made to a shorter route, you'd save even more time.
For the umpteenth time, two different states. NCDOT wants to build this highway, VDOT currently has no proposals or concepts for an interstate to I-95. This is the best and cheapest routing NCDOT can build it on.
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.
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 09:10:14 PM
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 :-D 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...
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 09:10:14 PM
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 :-D 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.
If NC I-87 had a more reasonable number (even and not a duplicate), it wouldn't get as much hate.
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 09:20:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 09:10:14 PM
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 :-D 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
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 09:24:19 PM
If NC I-87 had a more reasonable number (even and not a duplicate), it wouldn't get as much hate.
False. If it had a more reasonable route, it wouldn't get as much facepalm.
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 09:24:19 PM
If NC I-87 had a more reasonable number (even and not a duplicate), it wouldn't get as much hate.
The people truly against it - they would still be against it if it was called an even, not a duplicate number. I really don't see a reason to be against it - it's not destroying the existing corridor. It will indeed connect Hampton Roads with Raleigh no matter how much you argue it, and people will chose to use it. The other option (US 58) will always be there for those who really don't like it.
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 09:26:53 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:28:57 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 09:26:53 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:02:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 08:42:20 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:25:51 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 09:20:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 09:10:14 PM
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 :-D 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.
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 09:30:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:28:57 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 09:26:53 PM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 09:30:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:28:57 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 09:26:53 PM
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.
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 09:34:25 PM
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.
^^ 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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:35:38 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:35:38 PM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 09:36:38 PM
I'd like some of the crack you're smoking.
Hey you are going overboard on that ... it's just pot.
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 09:36:38 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 09:34:25 PM
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.
Quote from: froggie on January 30, 2019, 09:37:59 PM
^^ 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.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:38:20 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:47:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:38:20 PM
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!!
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:47:57 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:47:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 08:54:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: 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. :D
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.
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 10:47:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 08:54:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: 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. :D
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.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:06:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 10:47:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 08:54:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: 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. :D
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?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:11:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:06:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:22:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:11:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:06:36 PM
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?
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
I-87 will also fit the concept of a nationally important Interstate highway.
Refuted.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
For 1, it will link two major metropolitan areas not linked by an interstate,
Refuted.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
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?
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 08:25:26 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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/2018/12/24/Edgecombe-to-get-boost-to-economy.html)
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/07/08/CSX-plans-for-rail-hub-boost-area.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/07/08/CSX-plans-for-rail-hub-boost-area.html)
https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite (https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite)
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:06:36 PM
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%.
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2019, 07:58:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:06:36 PM
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?
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%.
Quote from: LM117 on January 31, 2019, 06:40:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 08:25:26 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2019, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
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/2018/12/24/Edgecombe-to-get-boost-to-economy.html)
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/07/08/CSX-plans-for-rail-hub-boost-area.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/07/08/CSX-plans-for-rail-hub-boost-area.html)
https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite (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.
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2019, 08:58:22 AM
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.
^ Slightly under, actually. Also using 2017 HPMS data, the average for rural Interstates is just over 26%.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:06:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 10:47:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 08:54:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: 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. :D
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.
For the record, having made the drive myself down to Binghamton multiple times, I don't mind that it's there.
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2019, 08:58:22 AM
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).
That's interesting, considering that there's a distribution center for Price Chopper right off NY 7 around there. I think Wegmans trucks stop there on their way to Massachusetts too.
Quote from: Rothman on January 31, 2019, 11:59:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:06:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 10:47:46 PM
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.
For the record, having made the drive [NY I-88] myself down to Binghamton multiple times, I don't mind that it's there.
That is what I would think, that plenty of people would find it useful. The AADT of 10,000 to 15,000 on the rural sections may be on the low side for a rural Interstate highway in the Northeast, but the truck percentages of 23% on average are in the normal range. Bordering states of PA and MA would tend to see some usefulness as well, and that would have factored into FHWA deciding to authorize I-88 in 1968 with 90% FHWA funding, from the package of 1,500 miles of national Interstate additions in 1968. The state could have either suggested another rural Interstate addition, or else declined the addition and lost that federal funding.
NY declining free federal money, that's the funniest thing I read on the internet today.
The western end of your so-called "Vanity" I-87 in NC has volumes over 90K in the Triangle. Guess that's why it was initially approved by FHWA as I-495 prior to the I-87 petition.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 12:02:59 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
I-87 will also fit the concept of a nationally important Interstate highway.
Refuted.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
For 1, it will link two major metropolitan areas not linked by an interstate,
Refuted.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:48:08 PM
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?
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
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.
It's not vanity. It's an obsession because the interstate runs slightly more milage, nobody would ever use it going from Hampton Roads, VA to Raleigh / I-95. Simply not true, and you can refute that as much as you'd like. It's common fact that people would prefer an interstate over arterial, despite it being "longer", it would still run the same time, maybe a minute slower. It's North Carolina hate rhetoric against their concepts for building freeways - NC has a larger freeway network (and I don't mean short limited-access bypasses around towns, I'm talking about continuous systems) than Virginia. They want to continue to expand the freeway network, and bring US 17 on the game. Now, because it would get Virginia to continue to I-64 to create a continuous corridor, it's vanity. If anything, that's a bi-state partnership to accomplish one goal. It's not vanity. What's vanity is the constant need to trash the proposed concept every time it's mentioned in this forum. If you have an issue with it, then stop coming on the forum daily to tell us why you don't like it.
News flash - it's the same stuff over and over. It's like FritzOwl's forum on his proposed interstate network. I don't go on their every time a new post is made and tell him his ideas are vanity and unrealistic, and repeat the same stuff over and over again. It's a forum about his ideas, and it can be. I personally respect him for that alone. This is a forum regarding I-87 stuff, but in reality it's been you for the past year telling everybody why it's vanity, useless, and never should happen.
Take a break dude. You're obsessed with trying to one-up every post about I-87.
Quote from: goobnav on January 31, 2019, 07:48:47 PM
NY declining free federal money, that's the funniest thing I read on the internet today.
The western end of your so-called "Vanity" I-87 in NC has volumes over 90K in the Triangle. Guess that's why it was initially approved by FHWA as I-495 prior to the I-87 petition.
The stretch from Raleigh to I-95 has more traffic. East of there, less so, but it would still work.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 08:52:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 12:02:59 AM
Refuted.
It's not vanity. It's an obsession because the interstate runs slightly more milage, nobody would ever use it going from Hampton Roads, VA to Raleigh / I-95. Simply not true, and you can refute that as much as you'd like. It's common fact that people would prefer an interstate over arterial, despite it being "longer", it would still run the same time, maybe a minute slower. It's North Carolina hate rhetoric against their concepts for building freeways - NC has a larger freeway network (and I don't mean short limited-access bypasses around towns, I'm talking about continuous systems) than Virginia. They want to continue to expand the freeway network, and bring US 17 on the game. Now, because it would get Virginia to continue to I-64 to create a continuous corridor, it's vanity. If anything, that's a bi-state partnership to accomplish one goal. It's not vanity. What's vanity is the constant need to trash the proposed concept every time it's mentioned in this forum. If you have an issue with it, then stop coming on the forum daily to tell us why you don't like it. News flash - it's the same stuff over and over. It's like FritzOwl's forum on his proposed interstate network. I don't go on their every time a new post is made and tell him his ideas are vanity and unrealistic, and repeat the same stuff over and over again. It's a forum about his ideas, and it can be. I personally respect him for that alone. This is a forum regarding I-87 stuff, but in reality it's been you for the past year telling everybody why it's vanity, useless, and never should happen.
Take a break dude. You're obsessed with trying to one-up every post about I-87.
I have explained repeatedly that this "I-87" will be 25 miles longer than the current route, and that with coming improvements on US-58 and I-95 it will never come close to catching up timewise. It will not be a "direct route between Raleigh and Norfolk".
You are not going to tell me when and where and how much to post. I am tired of your lies and dishonesty that just keep going on and on like a bad case of diarrhea.
This not some silly roadgeek issue, it is about the prime purpose or lack thereof for a proposed Interstate highway.
I will decide when and where to confront this fraudulent item of advocacy for this proposed highway.
What you have been doing here just reinforces my suspicions that there are dishonest advocates for this proposed highway, in both states.
Who are you anyway? Many people here know me going back to the late 1990s when I started posting on online highways/roads/transport forums. They know my background and I have met many of them in person at roads meets.
Go away little troll.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 09:51:14 PM
I have explained repeatedly that this "I-87" will be 25 miles longer than the current route, and that with coming improvements on US-58 and I-95 it will never come close to catching up timewise. It will not be a "direct route between Raleigh and Norfolk".
A lot of interstates run slightly indirect routes to service towns. The only difference here is there is an alternative to that slightly indirect routing that is more direct. No problems with it. The interstate is being constructed in North Carolina, Virginia would have all control over US 58 improvements. No improvements proposed for US 58 would speed it up timewise. The upgrade between Suffolk and I-64 will not increase capacity, cut time, nor will the 6 lane widening, which will add new traffic signals, and other than that there's no major upgrades planned.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 09:51:14 PM
You are not going to tell me when and where and how much to post. I am tired of your lies and dishonesty that just keep going on and on like a bad case of diarrhea.
You're the only one who keeps coming back at the issue. Me or somebody else on the forum mentions an improvement to US 17 proposed, or discuss it, and you come on telling us the same thing at least 40 different times - it's "25 miles longer" and is "vanity".
The only one that seems like a bad case of diarrhea is you constantly coming back. This forum is mainly consisted of constant "vanity" talk against the route rather than actual discussion of the route itself. I'm just asking can you please stop coming back with the same thing? I'm not "lying" or being "dishonest", you're adding numbers and trash-talking this route beyond belief.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 09:51:14 PM
I will decide when and where to confront this fraudulent item of advocacy for this proposed highway.
And you have. About 40+ times. The same thing, over and over, to the exact same people. You've made your point clear. We get it.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 09:51:14 PM
What you have been doing here just reinforces my suspicions that there are dishonest advocates for this proposed highway, in both states.
And seriously, what is wrong with an upgrade to US 17? Does it hurt you? Does it make a huge negative change? I'm not seeing anything wrong with it, yes there might be things such as longer mileage that make it less "direct", but we're talking about a freeway upgrade NCDOT is proposing. They've done hundreds of them, and this is the first one you've come on strong about as far as I'm aware.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 09:51:14 PM
Who are you anyway? Many people here know me going back to the late 1990s when I started posting on online highways/roads/transport forums. They know my background and I have met many of them in person at roads meets.
Go away little troll.
Okay, and? You've joined in the 90s, I've joined more recently. I have every right to be here just as much as you do. Not everybody here on the forum has "met you in person" and "know your background". A few people in the mid-atlantic and northeastern sections may know you, but this forum has thousands of members. You need to accept that not everybody is going to agree with your views just because you worked with VDOT for 40 years and have background knowledge with some people. People will back you, agree with you, but so what? Are you superior over everyone new on this forum for that?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 10:09:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 09:51:14 PM
You are not going to tell me when and where and how much to post. I am tired of your lies and dishonesty that just keep going on and on like a bad case of diarrhea.
You're the only one who keeps coming back at the issue. Me or somebody else on the forum mentions an improvement to US 17 proposed, or discuss it, and you come on telling us the same thing at least 40 different times - it's "25 miles longer" and is "vanity".
YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up, about the "direct route between Raleigh and Norfolk".
YOU are by far the main person I reply to.
If YOU don't want to see my comments than stop making that claim.
If you make the claim then I reserve the right to respond, and it doesn't matter if it is 100 times, it take two people to have an argument.
Who are you anyway?
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 10:19:20 PM
YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up, about the "direct route between Raleigh and Norfolk".
I've agreed and stated numerous times that US 58 is still the more direct route. I-87 will simply carry the same amount of travel time as US 58 will. I've already refuted your claims of that at least 40+ times.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 10:19:20 PM
YOU are by far the main person I reply to.
If YOU don't want to see my comments than stop making that claim.
If you make the claim then I reserve the right to respond, and it doesn't matter if it is 100 times, it take two people to have an argument.
Then it looks like we'll be going back and fourth for a long time.
It's a freeway upgrade NCDOT is proposing, along the many other miles of highway they've upgraded. Why so much heat and hate for this one particularly?
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 10:19:20 PM
Who are you anyway?
I'm a member of this forum, one out of the thousands that are here. Do I have to be a particular person that you know?
Let's compromise and get them to build I-87 all the way around the other side of the Earth in a straight ring. :spin:
It seems like you both don't want to argue, but you feel like you have to.
Protip: if you don't want a reply, don't reply yourself.
Quote from: 1 on January 31, 2019, 10:26:17 PM
It seems like you both don't want to argue, but you feel like you have to.
Protip: if you don't want a reply, don't reply yourself.
If I mention anything about I-87, the same "25 miles slower", "vanity I-87", "nobody between the two terminus points will use it whatsoever" nonsense gets said every single time. I don't ask for it when I simply make a post about I-87, even if I'm not replying to Beltway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 10:19:20 PM
YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up, about the "direct route between Raleigh and Norfolk".
I've agreed and stated numerous times that US 58 is still the more direct route. I-87 will simply carry the same amount of travel time as US 58 will. I've already refuted your claims of that at least 40+ times.
That's the problem, engineering proves otherwise. Magical thinking tries to overrule engineering. It will probably always be at least 20 minutes slower, maybe 30.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 10:19:20 PM
YOU are by far the main person I reply to.
If YOU don't want to see my comments than stop making that claim.
If you make the claim then I reserve the right to respond, and it doesn't matter if it is 100 times, it take two people to have an argument.
Then it looks like we'll be going back and fourth for a long time.
It's a freeway upgrade NCDOT is proposing, along the many other miles of highway they've upgraded. Why so much heat and hate for this one particularly?
You are taking this way too per$onally... why? Why are you so inve$ted in this highway?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 10:19:20 PM
Who are you anyway?
I'm a member of this forum, one out of the thousands that are here. Do I have to be a particular person that you know?
You are what damages the credibility of anonymous posters.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 31, 2019, 10:26:12 PM
Let's compromise and get them to build I-87 all the way around the other side of the Earth in a straight ring. :spin:
Build it all the way to Cape Hatteras!
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 10:31:33 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 31, 2019, 10:26:12 PM
Let's compromise and get them to build I-87 all the way around the other side of the Earth in a straight ring. :spin:
Build it all the way to Cape Hatteras!
Remember, I already said that and then to make the Williamston to Tidewater area a 3 digit, :). Long live Fritz!!
Looks like we all agree that I-87 is not going to be the main route between Raleigh and Norfolk.
Quote from: NE2 on February 01, 2019, 07:15:13 AM
Looks like we all agree that I-87 is not going to be the main route between Raleigh and Norfolk.
It will be
a route to Norfolk. There will be others. They will all take the around same amount of time depending on where you're headed, and at that point it's just preference.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 07:38:35 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 01, 2019, 07:15:13 AM
Looks like we all agree that I-87 is not going to be the main route between Raleigh and Norfolk.
It will be a route to Norfolk. There will be others. They will all take the around same amount of time depending on where you're headed, and at that point it's just preference.
You are trying to reargue the core point that is in dispute.
We were told by a Global Moderator to halt this exact same topical discussion (main route between Raleigh and Norfolk) in the Mid-Atlantic > Virginia thread --
Quote from: Alps on January 31, 2019, 11:40:14 PM
Enough out of both of you. New topic.
I took that directive to be global, and I said so in that thread.
The moderators can weigh in at this point about how to proceed, before I post any rebuttal.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 08:55:58 AM
You are trying to reargue the core point that is in dispute.
We were told by a Global Moderator to halt this exact same topical discussion (main route between Raleigh and Norfolk) in the Mid-Atlantic > Virginia thread --
The point of the comment was to end the back and fourth disputing about it on a completely unrelated thread. I have facts here, that you can attempt to dispute all day -
If you're traveling between I-95 and I-64 / I-464 / VA-168, it's 15 miles slower to take US 17, and if that speed limit was upped to 70 MPH on I-87, it would take 2 hours 7 minutes. The existing route on US 58 takes 2 hours 6 minutes. For many travelers not in a big 18-wheeler with strict mileage would prefer the interstate option over the arterial option, if it was to take the same time. Most drivers would avoid any traffic signal, slower speed limit, etc. if possible, and this would do just that. If, let's say, on a long trip from Florida to Norfolk, 1,000 miles long, why would one want to exit the freeway to then take an 1 hour 30 minute drive on a road averaged at 55 MPH (the western section is 60, the eastern has between 35 and 55) rather than hop on I-87, and keep cruising at 70+ MPH with no stop lights, etc. to hit Hampton Roads, then cruise at 65 MPH on I-64 or the other highways until home? It just makes sense. Myself, I would still hop in the interstate if it took 5 minutes longer. Being one who drives around 75 - 80 on the interstate like most people, I'd easily beat that time, and it's more convenient honestly.
How can you claim "25 minutes slower"? Do the math. Distance (135 on US 58 / 150 on US 17) divided by speed (63-64 MPH on US 58 and I-95 / 70 MPH on I-87). It's a formula. To certain parts of Hampton Roads, this would be longer, but east of the Elizabeth River would see these times around the same.
Also, throw in recurring congestion on I-95 between Rocky Mount and Emporia which is frequent during peak travel times, and I-87 would be the preferred option to avoid as much of that as possible if during peak times. Granted, I-95 may be widened to 6 lanes by that point, but congestion would only be caused at the Virginia border going 3 lanes down to 2, unless Virginia were to somehow fund a widening project themselves. This argument in particular depends on what happens in the future.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 08:55:58 AM
You are trying to reargue the core point that is in dispute.
We were told by a Global Moderator to halt this exact same topical discussion (main route between Raleigh and Norfolk) in the Mid-Atlantic > Virginia thread --
The point of the comment was to end the back and fourth disputing about it on a completely unrelated thread.
Mid-Atlantic > Virginia is -not- a completely unrelated thread, technically it would be on-topic there.
Have you asked the moderators what their reasons were?
Have you waited for them to weigh in on the matter here? No, you didn't.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 04:59:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 08:55:58 AM
You are trying to reargue the core point that is in dispute.
We were told by a Global Moderator to halt this exact same topical discussion (main route between Raleigh and Norfolk) in the Mid-Atlantic > Virginia thread --
The point of the comment was to end the back and fourth disputing about it on a completely unrelated thread.
Mid-Atlantic > Virginia is -not- a completely unrelated thread, technically it would be on-topic there.
Have you asked the moderators what their reasons were?
Have you waited for them to weigh in on the matter here? No, you didn't.
The moderator (not plural) said for us to stop going back and fourth. These comments -
"I direct readers to the "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)" thread. I will deal with this matter there in the future."
"If any readers are actually interested, you've mentioned your few vanity, anti-interstate rhetoric points. It's 25 miles slower, will carry no traffic whatsoever between I-95 and Norfolk, and is already serviced by a high-speed arterial highway. Did I miss anything? I just saved people the time of clicking through at least 15 pages of the same thing."
I'm pointing out factual information here, I'd surely be surprised if that's banned.
Enough already. At this point everyone knows what they think about I-87 and future debate won't change anyone's mind. Time to move on!
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:05:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 04:59:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 08:55:58 AM
You are trying to reargue the core point that is in dispute.
We were told by a Global Moderator to halt this exact same topical discussion (main route between Raleigh and Norfolk) in the Mid-Atlantic > Virginia thread --
The point of the comment was to end the back and fourth disputing about it on a completely unrelated thread.
Mid-Atlantic > Virginia is -not- a completely unrelated thread, technically it would be on-topic there.
Have you asked the moderators what their reasons were?
Have you waited for them to weigh in on the matter here? No, you didn't.
The moderator (not plural) said for us to stop going back and fourth. These comments -
Our discussion here has been a near carbon copy of the one there.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:05:23 PM
"I direct readers to the "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)" thread. I will deal with this matter there in the future."
"If any readers are actually interested, you've mentioned your few vanity, anti-interstate rhetoric points. It's 25 miles slower, will carry no traffic whatsoever between I-95 and Norfolk, and is already serviced by a high-speed arterial highway. Did I miss anything? I just saved people the time of clicking through at least 15 pages of the same thing."
I'm pointing out factual information here, I'd surely be surprised if that's banned.
They won't ban the topic, but if they think that 2 posters are eating up too much oxygen and indirectly discouraging others from posting (notice how few others have been posting recently?), then they have several ways they could utilize to exclude those 2 posters from commenting about VI-87.
As Ken Watanabe said so eloquently:
Let them fight.
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2019, 11:16:24 PM
As Ken Watanabe said so eloquently:
Let them fight.
"Ken Watanabe is a Japanese actor. To English-speaking audiences, he is known for playing tragic hero characters, such as General Tadamichi Kuribayashi in Letters from Iwo Jima and Lord Katsumoto Moritsugu in The Last Samurai, for which he was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor."
Do you know what happened after Kuribayashi's Last Stand? Nearly all of his 20,000 some troops had been killed. He committed seppuku. He cut his guts out with a knife.
Wikipedia says that probably wasn't the case.
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2019, 11:36:34 PM
Wikipedia says that probably wasn't the case.
On 22 mar, Kuribayashi radioed "[w]e are still fighting.... The strength under my command is now about four hundred. Tanks are attacking us. The enemy suggested we surrender through loudspeaker, but our officers and men just laughed and paid no attention." On the next day, he sent Chichi Jima this final message, to be relayed on to Tokyo: "All officers of Chichi Jima, goodbye from Iwo". He reportedly committed ritual suicide, but his body was never found.
https://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=21
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2019, 11:16:24 PM
As Ken Watanabe said so eloquently:
Let them fight.
What, and actually allow a hot and heated discussion without some purple-text-typer getting all worked up and shutting it down? What do you think this is, M.T.R. or something? :bigass:
Quote from: hbelkins on February 02, 2019, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2019, 11:16:24 PM
As Ken Watanabe said so eloquently:
Let them fight.
What, and actually allow a hot and heated discussion without some purple-text-typer getting all worked up and shutting it down? What do you think this is, M.T.R. or something? :bigass:
Oh it already got shot down. Just in a different forum.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fhttg0EG.png&hash=92ef7ad4c456da20e57e8387f4af558b1b281feb)
Quote from: hbelkins on February 02, 2019, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2019, 11:16:24 PM
As Ken Watanabe said so eloquently:
Let them fight.
What, and actually allow a hot and heated discussion without some purple-text-typer getting all worked up and shutting it down? What do you think this is, M.T.R. or something?
If Rothman is eagerly looking to see a fight, then he will likely be disappointed.
Quote from: NE2 on February 02, 2019, 06:24:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fhttg0EG.png&hash=92ef7ad4c456da20e57e8387f4af558b1b281feb)
Interstates don't run the most direct routes for reasons. They service the communities along the way. North Carolina would have far less potential with a NC 11 general routing rather than US 17.
I'm not trying to get into this debate again. It's the same thing - 25 miles slower, we get it. I don't think North Carolina intends on re-routing I-87, and I don't intend on trying to debate this.
I will mention however, and this is for Beltway also, after reviewing the US 17 Feasibility Study, https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/final-feasibility-report.pdf, it's mentioned several times the real goal of the project is to connect eastern NC to Norfolk and eastern NC to Raleigh, to promote economic development in eastern NC, and to improve and make US 17 a safer highway, and better connectivity to other cities from eastern NC. A study done in 2013 titled the "US 17 Economic Impact Study" indicates one reason for the upgrades could be for opportunities to divert traffic off of I-95, however that's referring to US 17 as opposed to I-95, not the connection to I-95 South.
I think the real focus isn't about directly connecting Raleigh / I-95 to Norfolk, but rather to connect the towns in between two the big cities via interstate, to get more economic growth. At the same time however, it would provide an interstate option between the two areas.
However, the Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study, https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/Regional%20Freight%20Study%20Update%202017%20Update%20-%20FINAL%28new%29.pdf, in 2017 indicated that a future project should be to provide a limited-access connection to I-95 South. They mentioned both US 58 and I-87 as options, and also indicated that I-87 would
"provide a more direct limited-access connection for people and freight from Hampton Roads to Southbound I-95 and the Raleigh-Durham area. The Port of Virginia and freight stakeholders in the region have stated that they find tremendous value in this potential future connection." It would also be tremendously cheaper for Virginia to upgrade US 17 into a freeway because it's already fully limited-access and interstate-grade and would require a few rural interchanges. US 58 would require constructing around 20 miles of new location segments and upgrading 30 miles of non-limited-access highway. Also, the Franklin bypass would require significant improvements, along with the Emporia bypass, if not bypassed fully themselves.
I think it's Virginia essentially saying, we don't feel like spending money on upgrading US 58, so we'll use I-87 as our "southern interstate link" despite it being longer. They will not promote that fact though.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 07:48:34 PM
However, the Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study, https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/Regional%20Freight%20Study%20Update%202017%20Update%20-%20FINAL%28new%29.pdf, in 2017 indicated that a future project should be to provide a limited-access connection to I-95 South. They mentioned both US 58 and I-87 as options, and also indicated that I-87 would "provide a more direct limited-access connection for people and freight from Hampton Roads to Southbound I-95 and the Raleigh-Durham area."
They're liars or idiots.
^^ Safe to say that sprjus4 missed the joke/reference...
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2019, 08:56:05 PM
^^ Safe to say that sprjus4 missed the joke/reference...
Actually, no, I did get it, I didn't comment on it. What's your issue anyway?
Quote from: NE2 on February 02, 2019, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 07:48:34 PM
However, the Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study, https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/Regional%20Freight%20Study%20Update%202017%20Update%20-%20FINAL%28new%29.pdf, in 2017 indicated that a future project should be to provide a limited-access connection to I-95 South. They mentioned both US 58 and I-87 as options, and also indicated that I-87 would "provide a more direct limited-access connection for people and freight from Hampton Roads to Southbound I-95 and the Raleigh-Durham area."
They're liars or idiots.
Likely idiots. They see it for what is it - an interstate to the south. They don't see the numbers though.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 07:48:34 PM
However, the Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study, https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/Regional%20Freight%20Study%20Update%202017%20Update%20-%20FINAL%28new%29.pdf, in 2017 indicated
NO! Not the conclusion of the study.
Look who they cited for making the quoted italicized fragment below --
"The Regional Transportation Alliance (RTA) — which is a coalition of businesses in the Raleigh-Durham area advocating for transportation initiatives and policy ..."
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 07:48:34 PM
that a future project should be to provide a limited-access connection to I-95 South. They mentioned both US 58 and I-87 as options, and also indicated that I-87 would "provide a more direct limited-access connection for people and freight from Hampton Roads to Southbound I-95 and the Raleigh-Durham area. The Port of Virginia and freight stakeholders in the region have stated that they find tremendous value in this potential future connection."
You acknowledged in your post that it was 25 miles longer than the current route of I-95 and US-58.
The RTA is a business advocacy group, and is ignorant of engineering and trucking when they make a statement like that. Large trucks get about 4 miles per gallon of fuel, and there is no way that truck drivers and trucking companies could consider it anything but much less direct.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 07:48:34 PM
However, the Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study, https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/Regional%20Freight%20Study%20Update%202017%20Update%20-%20FINAL%28new%29.pdf, in 2017 indicated
NO! Not the conclusion of the study.
Look who they cited for making the quoted italicized fragment below --
"The Regional Transportation Alliance (RTA) — which is a coalition of businesses in the Raleigh-Durham area advocating for transportation initiatives and policy ..."
Where did they indicate that came directly from the RTA? I know what the RTA is, but was not able to find that quote from them.
Either way, let's let HRTPO and VDOT make the decision of what they decide to do, and let NCDOT decide to build I-87 or not. There's clearly a desire for a limited-access corridor to I-95 South, and unless VDOT plops out $1.5 - $2 billion dollars to make it a reality, I see them going along with I-87 based on cost.
There are several non-suburb cities 20K+ without freeway access around the country; Elizabeth City is slightly under. The other cities along the route are about 5K at the most. Does this mean that every US city 20K+ needs a 100-mile freeway connecting them, even if there's nothing nearby?
Jacksonville NC is four times as large and in the same state.
Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2019, 09:33:17 PM
There are several non-suburb cities 20K+ without freeway access; Elizabeth City is slightly under. The other cities along the route are about 5K at the most. Does this mean that every US city 20K+ needs a 100-mile freeway connecting them, even if there's nothing nearby?
Jacksonville NC is four times as large and in the same state.
There's been a desire to provide interstate access to Jacksonville in the past, and still has been recently discussed. North Carolina has a larger freeway network than many states, and has a desire to connect Elizabeth City to Norfolk and Raleigh.
Don't kill the messenger, I'm basically quoting them.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 07:48:34 PM
However, the Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study, https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/Regional%20Freight%20Study%20Update%202017%20Update%20-%20FINAL%28new%29.pdf, in 2017 indicated
NO! Not the conclusion of the study.
Look who they cited for making the quoted italicized fragment below --
"The Regional Transportation Alliance (RTA) — which is a coalition of businesses in the Raleigh-Durham area advocating for transportation initiatives and policy ..."
Where did they indicate that came directly from the RTA? I know what the RTA is, but was not able to find that quote from them.
It is clear enough as they are quoted right around that passage.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 09:26:30 PM
Either way, let's let HRTPO and VDOT make the decision of what they decide to do, and let NCDOT decide to build I-87 or not. There's clearly a desire for a limited-access corridor to I-95 South, and unless VDOT plops out $1.5 - $2 billion dollars to make it a reality, I see them going along with I-87 based on cost.
I don't see VDOT having any interest in I-87 to southerly I-95. They already have a shorter connection that will see major upgrades over the next 10 years or so.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 09:39:17 PM
It is clear enough as they are quoted right around that passage.
There's no proof of that. They bolded other key points throughout the study for different roadways as well.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 09:39:17 PM
I don't see VDOT having any interest in I-87 to southerly I-95. They already have a shorter connection that will see major upgrades over the next 10 years or so.
The only one now is the six-lane widening. The US 58/13/460 Connector Study was cancelled, likely those improvements are not going to come any time soon, plus it's estimated to cost $400 million as per HRTPO to simply add two interchanges seems like a huge waste as valuable money, I think we can both agree on that.
Did I miss something else? Correct me if I did.
I-87 would likely cost less than $70 million to complete, and provide the Port with the desired southerly interstate connection to I-95. And if they had 0 interest, then this study would not have even mentioned it or considered it as an option for connecting with I-95 South to begin with. It's also interesting they say -
"In 2012, the highest amount of freight that was moved in Hampton Roads in terms of weight (annual tonnage) was along the I-64 corridor and Route 58. By 2040, the top corridors for moving freight tonnage are expected to be I-64, Route 58, Route 13/CBBT, and I-264 in Norfolk and Portsmouth. By 2040, the top two primary gateways for freight by annual tonnage are expected to be I-64 and Route 58 (see Figure ES-7). The IHS Transearch data analysis only includes existing roadways so the potential I-87 Interstate corridor may also be a top freight gateway in the future."Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 09:23:51 PM
Large trucks get about 4 miles per gallon of fuel, and there is no way that truck drivers and trucking companies could consider it anything but much less direct.
Do you ever consider that that's today? Who knows how trucks will be in 20 years. Technology is improving, trucks could become way more fuel efficient by then.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 09:39:17 PM
It is clear enough as they are quoted right around that passage.
There's no proof of that. They bolded other key points throughout the study for different roadways as well.
Whoever made that statement is ignorant of engineering and trucking.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 09:39:17 PM
I don't see VDOT having any interest in I-87 to southerly I-95. They already have a shorter connection that will see major upgrades over the next 10 years or so.
The only one now is the six-lane widening. The US 58/13/460 Connector Study was cancelled, likely those improvements are going to come any time soon, plus it's estimated to cost $400 million as per HRTPO.
It has not been canceled. You listed it in the 2040 long range plan in another thread.
There is the Bowers Hill Interchange upgrade.
There is a study to connect the Franklin and Courtland bypasses.
There an arterial management study along the whole 71 mile corridor that can lay the foundation for upgrades.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 09:46:13 PM
I-87 would likely cost less than $70 million to complete
In Virginia? I would estimate at least $250 million, maybe $400 million.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 09:23:51 PM
Large trucks get about 4 miles per gallon of fuel, and there is no way that truck drivers and trucking companies could consider it anything but much less direct.
Do you ever consider that that's today? Who knows how trucks will be in 20 years. Technology is improving, trucks could become way more fuel efficient by then.
Trucks are getting bigger. If you want to look 20 years ahead they may allow 100,000 to 110,000 pounds GVW.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 10:00:02 PM
It has not been canceled. You listed it in the 2040 long range plan in another thread.
There is the Bowers Hill Interchange upgrade.
There is a study to connect the Franklin and Courtland bypasses.
There an arterial management study along the whole 71 mile corridor that can lay the foundation for upgrades.
And none of those projects have been funded or are guaranteed for funding. Their was a brief evaluation done near Franklin and Courtland which said, hey we should connect these two. I saw the study. There's been no further analysis of it, or is even listed on the long range plan.
The Bowers Hill Interchange upgrade isn't going to impact US 58? Plus, don't even get me started on that cost estimate.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 10:00:02 PM
In Virginia? I would estimate at least $250 million, maybe $400 million.
For 5 interchanges, on farmland? If you're going numbers those high, a US 58 upgrade would be over $4 billion.
The reason the US 58 / 13 / 460 connector is so god damn expensive is because sensitive protected swamp land is on both sides of it plus they'd have to widen the shoulders to proper width, and you've mentioned before, interstate standard shoulders require a full reconstruction, plus adding them on the left side. That's not the case for US 17. It's already built to full interstate standards, with the exception of the few at-grade intersections. The footprints for interchanges wouldn't impact the Great Dismal Swamp.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 10:00:02 PM
Trucks are getting bigger. If you want to look 20 years ahead they may allow 100,000 to 110,000 pounds GVW.
And likely will come with more fuel efficiency as technology gets better and better. Going an additional 20 miles might not have an impact like it does today. Passenger vehicles don't have an impact doing that additional distance today. Maybe trucks won't either. Who knows.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:10:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 10:00:02 PM
It has not been canceled. You listed it in the 2040 long range plan in another thread.
There is the Bowers Hill Interchange upgrade.
There is a study to connect the Franklin and Courtland bypasses.
There an arterial management study along the whole 71 mile corridor that can lay the foundation for upgrades.
And none of those projects have been funded or are guaranteed for funding. Their was a brief evaluation done near Franklin and Courtland which said, hey we should connect these two. I saw the study. There's been no further analysis of it, or is even listed on the long range plan.
That was from HRTPO. VDOT will have its own priorities.
But if you want to look 20 years into the future all of them are probable if not likely, and more that are not even official proposals yet. :-/
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:10:57 PM
That's not the case for US 17. It's already built to full interstate standards, with the exception of the few at-grade intersections. The footprints for interchanges wouldn't impact the Great Dismal Swamp.
But they would impact sensitive areas that caused years of delays by ACOE for the relocation project. There are 3 miles of nonlimited-access highway on the southern end of Dominion Blvd. Four or five public road interchanges would be needed, and three at-grade intersections with the massive farm would have to be addressed probably by bridges.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:10:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 10:00:02 PM
Trucks are getting bigger. If you want to look 20 years ahead they may allow 100,000 to 110,000 pounds GVW.
And likely will come with more fuel efficiency as technology gets better and better. Going an additional 20 miles might not have an impact like it does today. Passenger vehicles don't have an impact doing that additional distance today. Maybe trucks won't either. Who knows.
Tractor-trailer fuel mileage has been relatively static for the last 60 years, as increasing GVWs have overcome fuel efficiency improvements.
High tech may make it possible to safely run full doubles and maybe triples, if we want to dream about the future.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 10:23:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:10:57 PM
That's not the case for US 17. It's already built to full interstate standards, with the exception of the few at-grade intersections. The footprints for interchanges wouldn't impact the Great Dismal Swamp.
But they would impact sensitive areas that caused years of delays by ACOE for the relocation project. There are 3 miles of nonlimited-access highway on the southern end of Dominion Blvd. Four or five public road interchanges would be needed, and three at-grade intersections with the massive farm would have to be addressed probably by bridges.
The entire 17 miles of U.S. 17 in Chesapeake has limited-access. There's two breaks in the limited-access right of way for 2 private driveways, those of which can easily have a frontage road extension.
If the farm at the southern end is truly an issue, they can buy out the west side of it. Or, even if they did construct a bridge, it would be $5-10 million maximum. A narrow 1 lane grade-separation would not cost a lot of money. It's not like it'd be designed like a public roadway bridge.
4 interchanges would be needed - Scenic Pkwy, George Washington Hwy, Cornland Rd, and Ballahack Rd. Those would cost around $60-70 million to construct total.
I drew up this concept map last year on how it could be done - https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/Upgrading_US_Route_17/YamBCRZZuC
A study is currently planned to study interchange locations, upgrading it to interstate standards, etc. Once that is complete, we'll have a better idea.
"In this regard, at the City's request, the Hampton Roads District Office of VDOT has agreed to take the lead in initiating a feasibility study to identify the general limits and future interchanges along the Dominion Boulevard Route 17 corridor. The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is also being requested to participate in the study. City staff will maintain contact with VDOT and HRTPO to facilitate initiation of the Route 17 interstate interchange feasibility study and will be prepared to help coordinate the study implementation, including organizing and promoting citizen input opportunities."http://files.constantcontact.com/2d09bb17be/38bd3e8d-7938-4453-ac21-829bfcf0f481.pdf - Route 17 Interstate Upgrade Impacts, December 2017
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 10:23:14 PM
and more that are not even official proposals yet. :-/
Correct. I-87 could become one of those in the future once the thing breaks ground in North Carolina. Nobody knows.
These projects were recommended to HRTPO for the Regional Connectors Study last Tuesday -
- Improving Route 17
- Separate/adjacent tunnel for traffic out of NIT
- New crossing just east of Williamsburg with connection to US 17, I-664, or US 460/17 on southside
- Ferry Service — Hampton, Norfolk, Newport News connections
- I-87 to NC
- Western extension of proposed I-664 Connector to US 17https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P6%267%20-%20Status%20Report%20-%20January%2029%202019_joint_meeting_ver1.pdf
Page 9.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:38:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 10:23:14 PM
But they would impact sensitive areas that caused years of delays by ACOE for the relocation project. There are 3 miles of nonlimited-access highway on the southern end of Dominion Blvd. Four or five public road interchanges would be needed, and three at-grade intersections with the massive farm would have to be addressed probably by bridges.
The entire 17 miles of U.S. 17 in Chesapeake has limited-access. There's two breaks in the limited-access right of way for 2 private driveways, those of which can easily have a frontage road extension.
That section is -not- limited access nor was the original Dominion Blvd. Access rights would have to be acquired and service roads built.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:38:43 PM
If the farm at the southern end is truly an issue, they can buy out the west side of it. Or, even if they did construct a bridge, it would be $5-10 million maximum. A narrow 1 lane grade-separation would not cost a lot of money. It's not like it'd be designed like a public roadway bridge.
Two of those farm intersections are where US-17 is right along the Dismal Swamp Canal, so it would be more involved and expensive than that. Losing that access would have a major impact on the farm so they can't just "buy out the west side of it", that might mean acquiring a square mile of land (that farm is huge).
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:38:43 PM
4 interchanges would be needed - Scenic Pkwy, George Washington Hwy, Cornland Rd, and Ballahack Rd. Those would cost around $60-70 million to construct total.
Such incredibly low cost estimates for projects you support, and such incredibly high cost estimates for projects you oppose.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:38:43 PM
I drew up this concept map last year on how it could be done - https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/Upgrading_US_Route_17/YamBCRZZuC
Interchanges far too small to provide proper service or meet modern standards. Again, ACOE may object.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:38:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 10:23:14 PM
and more that are not even official proposals yet. :-/
Correct. I-87 could become one of those in the future once the thing breaks ground in North Carolina. Nobody knows.
Highways, highways, highways.
Far more tonnage of Hampton Roads port freight moves by railroad than by highway, and that will only increase as projects such as the recent Heartlands project are built to upgrade the railroad network in this part of the county.
The Heartland Corridor Project is an 852km-long railway line constructed [actually upgrade of existing] in Virginia, US. It carries double stack container freight trains between the Port of Norfolk and Chicago. The line became operational on 9 September 2010. The line was built by Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and Federal agencies through a public-private partnership. The total cost of the project was $321m.
https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/norfolkheartland/
Another big improvement to the Hampton Roads freight railroad system --
The relocated freight railroad line of Commonwealth Railway, Inc., a Suffolk-West Norfolk short-line railroad, follows the orange line along the two highways I-664 and VA-164. The red line is the abandoned route thru Portsmouth neighborhoods. The relocated line opened in December 2010. The $60 million project, paid for almost entirely with federal and state funding, connects the APM Terminals' port facility in Portsmouth to the rail systems of Norfolk Southern Corp. and CSX Corp. in Suffolk. The relocated freight railroad line not only provides a higher speed and higher capacity fully grade separated line, but also provides a major benefit to the Portsmouth neighborhoods that no longer have an at-grade freight railroad line that had 14 road crossings.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Mid_Tunn_Port_Norf_MLK.html
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Commonwealth%20Railway.jpg
This railroad line will be connected to the future Craney Island Marine Terminal.
Freight rail will become even more dominant in the Hampton Road area.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 11:55:03 PM
That section is -not- limited access nor was the original Dominion Blvd. Access rights would have to be acquired and service roads built.
Incorrect.
Page 1-1 of the Environmental Assessment completed in 2008 indicates the roadway already had a limited-access right of way, and in fact was built on a four-lane right of way to begin with. This goes for the entire Dominion Blvd corridor from US 17 to I-64.
"The alternatives were evaluated by a study team task force, which subsequently recommended construction of a four-lane divided arterial roadway within the existing limited access right-of-way at the southern terminus of the corridor (i.e., from US 17 to just south of Cedar Road)."http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/Dominion+Environmental+Assessment.pdf
Not to mention, the design plans (linked below) also show "Prop. ROW and Limited Access Line" on the edge of the right of way. Also, limited-access fencing line the entire corridor today. You can easily see these from street view.
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/2008+Dominion+Proposal/2008+PH-Display-S1.pdf
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/2008+Dominion+Proposal/2008-PH-Display-South.pdf
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/2008+Dominion+Proposal/2008-PH-Display-Cedar.pdf
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/2008+Dominion+Proposal/2008-PH-Display-Bridge.pdf
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/2008+Dominion+Proposal/2008-PH-Display-Bainbridge.pdf
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/2008+Dominion+Proposal/2008-PH-Display-GBB$!26Oak.pdf (http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/2008+Dominion+Proposal/2008-PH-Display-GBB$!26Oak.pdf)
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 11:55:03 PM
Two of those farm intersections are where US-17 is right along the Dismal Swamp Canal, so it would be more involved and expensive than that.
There's no farm on the west side where US-17 is right along the Dismal Swamp Canal. If you build a bridge there, it goes into the canal... The only portion overpasses would be required are where US 17 is -not- along the canal.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 11:55:03 PM
Such incredibly low cost estimates for projects you support, and such incredibly high cost estimates for projects you oppose.
It's a lot cheaper to build on farm land than swamp. Not to mention, the interchanges along U.S. Route 58 would involve complex designs. I support both projects, I just don't see the U.S. 58 connector happening anytime soon with a price tag like that. Plus, ACOE may object. Dominion Blvd was cheaper, had way more justification for funding (only 2 lanes, heavy traffic, low-level draw bridge on major corridor, etc), and ended up being tolled.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 11:55:03 PM
Interchanges far too small to provide proper service or meet modern standards.
The length of the ramps is the exact same as used on the 2016 Goldsboro Bypass in North Carolina. It was built to full interstate standards, and will eventually be Interstate 42.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 11:55:03 PM
Highways, highways, highways.
Far more tonnage of Hampton Roads port freight moves by railroad than by highway, and that will only increase as projects such as the recent Heartlands project are built to upgrade the railroad network in this part of the county.
The Heartland Corridor Project is an 852km-long railway line constructed [actually upgrade of existing] in Virginia, US. It carries double stack container freight trains between the Port of Norfolk and Chicago. The line became operational on 9 September 2010. The line was built by Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and Federal agencies through a public-private partnership. The total cost of the project was $321m.
https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/norfolkheartland/
Another big improvement to the Hampton Roads freight railroad system --
The relocated freight railroad line of Commonwealth Railway, Inc., a Suffolk-West Norfolk short-line railroad, follows the orange line along the two highways I-664 and VA-164. The red line is the abandoned route thru Portsmouth neighborhoods. The relocated line opened in December 2010. The $60 million project, paid for almost entirely with federal and state funding, connects the APM Terminals' port facility in Portsmouth to the rail systems of Norfolk Southern Corp. and CSX Corp. in Suffolk. The relocated freight railroad line not only provides a higher speed and higher capacity fully grade separated line, but also provides a major benefit to the Portsmouth neighborhoods that no longer have an at-grade freight railroad line that had 14 road crossings.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Mid_Tunn_Port_Norf_MLK.html
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Commonwealth%20Railway.jpg
This railroad line will be connected to the future Craney Island Marine Terminal.
Freight rail will become even more dominant in the Hampton Road area.
I'm aware of both projects. They're operational today. I still see plenty of trucks on the highways around here today. That's not the only justification for I-87. But let's not get back into that debate.
:popcorn:
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 03, 2019, 12:43:17 AM
I've had mine in hand all day. :spin:
OK then. Not going to kinkshame.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 10:38:43 PM
The entire 17 miles of U.S. 17 in Chesapeake has limited-access. There's two breaks in the limited-access right of way for 2 private driveways, those of which can easily have a frontage road extension.
If the farm at the southern end is truly an issue, they can buy out the west side of it. Or, even if they did construct a bridge, it would be $5-10 million maximum. A narrow 1 lane grade-separation would not cost a lot of money. It's not like it'd be designed like a public roadway bridge.
4 interchanges would be needed - Scenic Pkwy, George Washington Hwy, Cornland Rd, and Ballahack Rd. Those would cost around $60-70 million to construct total.
Mr. Cartwright's farm has property on both sides of US-17, it was divided by the relocation project, and he has 3 at-grade intersections with breaks in the limited access right-of-way line, they provide him access across the highway as well as to the highway. VDOT can expect some serious legal opposition if they try to take a major chunk out of his farm, plus serious acquisition expense, so I don't see that is being a feasible alternative. With most farm equipment you can't accommodate that on a one-lane bridge, so figure a 2-lane bridge with gradual enough earthen roadway approaches so that heavy farm equipment can make it up the grade.
A location/EIS study and public hearings and city resident input would most likely result in at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange.
There are several ways to address the Cartwright Farm, the least expensive way that also gives him full access to his farm and full grade-separated access to US-17 at about the midpoint of his farm, would probably be to build a private paved service road for 3 miles (yeah, that is how big his farm is!) along the east side of the highway and to build a diamond interchange near Number Two Ditch and it would be for his private use.
A basic freeway interchange with a local road would be about $25 million in today's dollars, just for construction. The overpass without interchange on level terrain would require earthen roadway approach to meet grade and this would be about $10 million in today's dollars, just for construction.
So that is 6 interchanges and 4 overpasses, or $190 million in today's dollars, just for construction. Maybe 5 miles of 2-lane service road at $10 million total, now up to $200 million total.
Design engineering and construction engineering together are budgeted at 15% of construction costs, so $30 million for that in today's dollars.
Right-of-way costs would be dependent on the final design and the lands impacted, but for the above I don't think it would be less than $20 million.
So that is $250 million, in today's dollars (I keep repeating that phrase because in a state or local TIP it would be inflation-factored thru the various budget years). That $250 million would be a good starting point at this time, naturally it would take preliminary engineering studies and design reviews to come up with a detailed estimate.
That $60-70 million is a way-lowballed figure generated for N.C. business advocacy group purposes.
This is a wasteful project and the money would be much better spent elsewhere.
.
^ Could probably just buy out his property on the west side of 17 and add that to the Dismal Swamp refuge...then just need to give him access off of Ballahack or Douglas...I'm not sure offhand where his property is.
But probably several years down the road (pun intended) before traffic along 17 there warrants controlled access...will depend on how much northern Camden County develops with Hampton Roads commuters.
Quote from: froggie on February 04, 2019, 09:51:27 AM
^ Could probably just buy out his property on the west side of 17 and add that to the Dismal Swamp refuge...then just need to give him access off of Ballahack or Douglas...I'm not sure offhand where his property is.
But probably several years down the road (pun intended) before traffic along 17 there warrants controlled access...will depend on how much northern Camden County develops with Hampton Roads commuters.
Google Maps Satellite View shows it pretty well ... that massive farm in the southwestern corner of the City of Chesapeake, approximately 3 miles square. The portion west of US-17 is at or close to a square mile, so I doubt he would want to give it up, and it would be very expensive to acquire.
Actually he has a 4th access point to US-17, about 200 feet north of the NC/VA border, so that would need to be addressed as well and by VDOT and not NCDOT. He had all those access points with the old highway, they were granted on the relocated highway, and if they were closed, unless he was given a paved service road along the eastern edge of US-17, he would see a serious loss of access, and that service road would consume more of his farm, and the southern end would need a grade separation to connect to the west side of US-17 and of course that is right up against the edge of the Dismal Swamp Canal.
I don't pretend to have a solution to the Cartwright Farm, just that it would take some tough negotiating between the owner and the state, and a major expense whatever the alternative.
If that's the location, I don't think access to that farm is as big of a deal as some may think. An interchange at Ballahack would probably be built anyway...that'd connect both sides of 17. And looking at satellite imagery, he has farm path access to all of his fields east of 17 off of both Ballahack and Ponderosa Rd on the NC side. He would have to be reimbursed for losing direct access off 17, but he does have other already-existing access.
Quote from: froggie on February 04, 2019, 10:43:37 AM
If that's the location, I don't think access to that farm is as big of a deal as some may think. An interchange at Ballahack would probably be built anyway...that'd connect both sides of 17. And looking at satellite imagery, he has farm path access to all of his fields east of 17 off of both Ballahack and Ponderosa Rd on the NC side. He would have to be reimbursed for losing direct access off 17, but he does have other already-existing access.
I don't believe that either Ballahack Road or Ponderosa Road connect to his farm, at least not directly, and he doesn't have much in the way of internal circulation other than the east-west Ditch roads which are dirt and not paved. And of course the old 2-lane US-17 was permanently closed to motor vehicle traffic.
The fact that he got 4 breaks in the limited-access right-of-way line granted to him by the CTB, giving him at-grade private intersections, would indicate that special considerations were needed given the configuration and massive size of the farm; one or two access points were not enough.
Quote from: Beltway on February 03, 2019, 11:51:37 PM
A location/EIS study and public hearings and city resident input would most likely result in at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange.
Interchanges located at Scenic Pkwy, George Washington Hwy + connecting to Herring Ditch Rd (diamond interchange), Cornland Rd, and Ballahack Rd would be all that's needed. There wouldn't need to be any additional grade-separations. The loss of access at Glencoe St would be given at the Ballahack Rd interchange, Douglas Rd / Benefit Rd has easy access over to both Ballahack and Cornland Rd interchanges, Eaglet Pkwy would have access via George Washington Hwy interchange, and Grassfield Pkwy would have access via the existing Cedar Rd interchange. There's not really a possible way to construct an interchange at Grassfield Pkwy without some complex designs, and likely would not be warranted thanks to the new 4-lane service road they opened a few months ago paralleling US 17 between Cedar Rd and Grassfield Pkwy + Cahoon Pkwy provides access.
Quote from: Beltway on February 03, 2019, 11:51:37 PM
There are several ways to address the Cartwright Farm, the least expensive way that also gives him full access to his farm and full grade-separated access to US-17 at about the midpoint of his farm, would probably be to build a private paved service road for 3 miles (yeah, that is how big his farm is!) along the east side of the highway and to build a diamond interchange near Number Two Ditch and it would be for his private use.
The city plans on constructing an Eco-Tourism Park & Equestrian Center + a wildlife overpass on the entire site west of US 17, therefore eliminating the need for an overpass.
The city also plans on eventually constructing the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park on the southern mile of the tract, and would likely come with it's own interchange access. That would provide access to both the farm + the park.
The current plan below shows intersections at these locations, but these designs were completed before the I-87 designation came, so these would obviously be interchanges / served by frontage roads.
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/supporting_docs/actions_council/2018/12-18-18/PPH-F.pdf
Page 60 (PDF Page 65) - Eco-Tourism Park & Equestrian Center concept
Page 66 (PDF Page 71) - Coastal Virginia Commerce Park concept
The farm tract is slowly going to get developed. There's not going to be "legal opposition", he supports the developments himself, because the city is going to buy land, and reimburse him.
Quote from: Beltway on February 03, 2019, 11:51:37 PM
A basic freeway interchange with a local road would be about $25 million in today's dollars, just for construction. The overpass without interchange on level terrain would require earthen roadway approach to meet grade and this would be about $10 million in today's dollars, just for construction.
So that is 6 interchanges and 4 overpasses, or $190 million in today's dollars, just for construction. Maybe 5 miles of 2-lane service road at $10 million total, now up to $200 million total. Design engineering and construction engineering together are budgeted at 15% of construction costs, so $30 million for that in today's dollars.
Right-of-way costs would be dependent on the final design and the lands impacted, but for the above I don't think it would be less than $20 million.
4 interchanges, no overpasses. The Coastal Virginia Commerce Park interchange (if that's a thing) would be apart of that package, not I-87. $100 million. Figure a couple miles of frontage roads, around $110 million. R/W + engineering, around $130 million.
Also, interchanges have been (recently) constructed for as low as $15 million. Some of the higher estimates come due to full property relocations, not currently on limited-access right of way either, swampy / forested land, etc. This is on farmland, and no properties would be taken. So your figure would slightly decrease. If you used $15 million per interchange, that's $60 million, plus frontage road, so $70 million. Factor R/W + engineering, around $80-90 million.
Quote from: Beltway on February 03, 2019, 11:51:37 PM
This is a wasteful project and the money would be much better spent elsewhere.
Like what, $300 million on a couple interchanges on US 58 that won't have any benefit whatsoever? $500 million for 8-lanes? $700 million for the adequate Bowers Hill interchange? This would at least provide a continuous freeway design down US 17 for 97 miles, along with another 100 on the existing US 64 interstate-grade freeway. It's also cheaper than all those other projects.
Let's wait until this actually gets further down the road (pun intended) and see what actually happens. Maybe this project won't get funded and built. Maybe it will. Nobody knows. I think we'd be wasting our time if we kept arguing whether it should be funded or not.
Either way, Chesapeake can develop projects over time that go with this end-goal, and over time do it themselves. Or, they can do one interchange at a time, not all at once, and get state-federal funding. US 74 between I-95 and Wilmington is a limited-access road with intersections. Over the course of around 20 years, they've been building interchanges one by one as they get funded. It's part of the I-74 corridor There's been no "one specific" project to fully upgrade it. US 17 can be done a similar way. Scenic Pkwy first, then George Washington Hwy (that area will start to develop soon), then the rural intersections, Ballahack and Cornland.
Quote from: froggie on February 04, 2019, 10:43:37 AM
If that's the location, I don't think access to that farm is as big of a deal as some may think. An interchange at Ballahack would probably be built anyway...that'd connect both sides of 17. And looking at satellite imagery, he has farm path access to all of his fields east of 17 off of both Ballahack and Ponderosa Rd on the NC side. He would have to be reimbursed for losing direct access off 17, but he does have other already-existing access.
NCDOT's conceptual designs for US 17 show a frontage road being constructed from South Mills all the way to the Virginia border. This could be extended if necessary, but I've mentioned above the city has plans to develop that site anyways, along with the other part of the tract split by US 17.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/us-17-segment-10.pdf
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 04, 2019, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 03, 2019, 11:51:37 PM
A location/EIS study and public hearings and city resident input would most likely result in at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange.
Interchanges located at Scenic Pkwy, George Washington Hwy + connecting to Herring Ditch Rd (diamond interchange), Cornland Rd, and Ballahack Rd would be all that's needed. There wouldn't need to be any additional grade-separations.
It is not for business advocacy groups to decide how to "pare down" the design to a minimum cost to present to the public to try to justify posting those red-white-and-blue trailblazers.
Starting point would be at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange. It it ever gets an EIS/location study that could be debated, but only then.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 04, 2019, 05:04:56 PM
Also, interchanges have been (recently) constructed for as low as $15 million.
Construction alone for a basic rural freeway interchange is more in the $20 to $25 million range, sometimes more. A hungry contractor might bid it lower especially in down economic times, but those are the figures I would utilize.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 04, 2019, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 03, 2019, 11:51:37 PM
This is a wasteful project and the money would be much better spent elsewhere.
Like what, $300 million on a couple interchanges on US 58 that won't have any benefit whatsoever? $500 million for 8-lanes? $700 million for the adequate Bowers Hill interchange?
Wildly exaggerated figures. :no:
Your list from the long-range plans last week would have been inflation-factored into the future years.
Here is what happens with my US-17 preliminary estimate which is in -today's- dollars, into what might be a realistic timespan to build it --
$250 million in 2020
Inflation-factored to 2030-2035 program funding
5% per year ------ $473 million
8% per year ------ $668 million
10% per year ----- $848 million
10% average per year cost inflation for heavy construction, is actually rather typical, and some years are worse. So a properly programmed STIP or MPO long-range plan should IMHO utilize at least 8% per year in the out years on average, although on a plan with a 20-year horizon such as a 2040 plan, I would strongly recommend using 10% per year.
I like your thoughts. I suggested the same with IH81 to relieve truck and bypass traffic out of the Atlanta area. Since no perimeter is going to be built. There needs to be serious consideration in making another route through GA to keep bypass traffic out of Atlanta, especially on weekends...
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 08:53:45 PM
It is not for business advocacy groups to decide how to "pare down" the design to a minimum cost to present to the public to try to justify posting those red-white-and-blue trailblazers.
Starting point would be at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange. It it ever gets an EIS/location study that could be debated, but only then.
It's funny, because there are 7 public road at-grade intersections. Let's go through them -
- Grassfield Pkwy - Extremely expensive to construct interchange here, tight, urban braided ramps concept required, access is provided via new frontage road that opened a few months back from the Cedar Road interchange. This would not justify an interchange.
- Scenic Pkwy - An interchange would be located here
- George Washington Hwy - An interchange would be located here, connected to Herring Ditch Rd to create a single diamond interchange.
- Cornland Rd - An interchange would be located here
- Douglas Rd - Approx. 1 mile away from Cornland Rd interchange, located in a heavy swampy area, and it does not justify an interchange nor an overpass. There's nothing located on the west side. Road would dead end.
- Glencoe St - Approx. 1 mile away from Ballahack Rd interchange, is a minor residential street, and has one property on the west side. Access could be provided via the existing Dismal Swamp Canal Trail, which is a built up roadway For one residence, this access could be granted, and a low speed limit posted. It would not warrant the cost to construct an overpass when an adequate roadway exists, especially for one residence, not an entire neighborhood. About half of this section of trail is already used as a public roadway to the Boat Ramp, along with a private residential access, Speed Limit 15.
- Ballahack Rd - An interchange would be located here.
I'm scratching my head wondering where you get 5 interchanges, and 4 overpasses, that's 9 total grade separations, some with ramps. There's only 7 public road at-grade intersections. Where are your proposed interchanges and overpasses specifically? Does one empty into the Dismal Swamp Canal?
4 interchanges would adequately serve the corridor, and it's not "business advocacy groups trying to keep the price low", I came up with that looking through the route, have driven the route numerous of times, have used these access points numerous of times, have spoken to locals in the area about the interstate in the past... baloney? Those are the most justified access points, and I can't see where anymore would need to be located...
I suppose you'd say the same about North Carolina's $1 billion estimate. Should it be $5 billion? Those estimates were done via concepts drew up in a feasibility study, and an engineering cost estimate for each segment. Did business advocacy groups come up with all those estimates + design concepts & engineering estimates?
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 08:53:45 PM
Construction alone for a basic rural freeway interchange is more in the $20 to $25 million range, sometimes more. A hungry contractor might bid it lower especially in down economic times, but those are the figures I would utilize.
I find your estimates funny. On the U.S. 74 / 76 corridor near Hallsboro, NC, there's currently 1 interchange under construction, and another interchange + an overpass planned for construction in a few years on an existing limited-access at-grade highway.
- U.S. 74 / Hallsboro Road Interchange - Under Construction - https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/A-Columbus-County-Intersection-with-US-74-76-to-be-Improved.aspx - ($9.4 million)
- U.S. 74 / Chauncey Town Rd Interchange + U.S. 74 / Old Lake Rd Overpass - Construction in 2022 - https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-lake-waccamaw-interchange-at-US-74.aspx - ($13 million)
Also, U.S. 117, Future I-795. Two interchanges for $20 million - https://www.newsargus.com/news/u-s-overpass-to-be-open-by-november/article_ea1a6068-1b65-5a8a-8e02-2c566e2bcf34.html
I suppose those are baloney figures as well, even though one interchange, $9.4 million, is already under construction, two interchanges, $20 million, one already open, one opening this summer, and 1 interchange & 1 overpass for $13 million under contract?
Then again, two four-lane arterial highways adequately serve the corridors. I suppose these projects are not warranted.
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 08:53:45 PM
Wildly exaggerated figures. :no:
Your list from the long-range plans last week would have been inflation-factored into the future years.
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P7-2045_LRTP_Candidate_Projects.pdf
"Estimated Planning Level Project Cost,
Current Year $ (in Millions)"
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 04, 2019, 10:35:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 08:53:45 PM
Construction alone for a basic rural freeway interchange is more in the $20 to $25 million range, sometimes more. A hungry contractor might bid it lower especially in down economic times, but those are the figures I would utilize.
I find your estimates funny. On the U.S. 74 / 76 corridor near Hallsboro, NC, there's currently 1 interchange under construction, and another interchange + an overpass planned for construction in a few years on an existing limited-access at-grade highway.
N.C. is not Virginia.
The Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange is $20 million for construction.
The Interstate 81 Exit 14 Interchange Improvements is $30 million for construction.
The Route 29 at Route 666, Culpeper County interchange was $19 million for construction.
The I-95 bridge and interchange improvements at Lewistown Road, Hanover, was $29 million for construction.
OK, let's say my $250 million estimate is reduced to $175 million.
Here is what happens with US-17 which is in -today's- dollars, into what might be a realistic timespan to build it --
$175 million in 2020
Inflation-factored to 2030-2035 program funding
5% per year ------ $331 million
8% per year ------ $468 million
10% per year ----- $594 million
10% average per year cost inflation for heavy construction, is actually rather typical, and some years are worse. So a properly programmed STIP or MPO long-range plan should IMHO utilize at least 8% per year in the out years on average, although on a plan with a 20-year horizon such as a 2040 plan, I would strongly recommend using 10% per year.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 04, 2019, 10:35:48 PM
I suppose you'd say the same about North Carolina's $1 billion estimate. Should it be $5 billion? Those estimates were done via concepts drew up in a feasibility study, and an engineering cost estimate for each segment.
They used current costs, with no inflation factoring. Try laying out a segmental build schedule of 2025 to 2040 and see what happens to that figure, it would triple or quadruple (and no I am not going to do the work this time, you can get the idea from the relative figures above).
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 11:56:34 PM
N.C. is not Virginia.
The Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange is $20 million for construction.
The Interstate 81 Exit 14 Interchange Improvements is $30 million for construction.
The Route 29 at Route 666, Culpeper County interchange was $19 million for construction.
The I-95 bridge and interchange improvements at Lewistown Road, Hanover, was $29 million for construction.
Those interchanges were more complicated designs. They involved road widening, signalized improvements, etc. On US 17, a more complicated build with 4-lanes, traffic signals, etc. would be required at George Washington Hwy and Scenic Pkwy, but the Ballahack Rd and Cornland interchanges would be built on farmland, and require very simple designs, two lanes of traffic, etc.
So maybe around $40-50 million total for G.W. Hwy and Scenic Pkwy, and $25-30 million for Ballahack and Cornland. Throw in additional $30 million for other improvements, maybe around $95-110 million.
If Chesapeake were to build these projects themselves, they could also use cheaper building methods, similar to the extremely low-cost interchanges in North Carolina. It may not meet VDOT's standard for new interchange construction, however it would still meet interstate standards, the NC examples I listed are on Future I-795 and Future I-74, and could work. If they want I-87 that badly, they could go for the cheapest options and build designs.
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 11:56:34 PM
$175 million in 2020
Inflation-factored to 2030-2035 program funding
5% per year ------ $331 million
8% per year ------ $468 million
10% per year ----- $594 million
10% average per year cost inflation for heavy construction, is actually rather typical, and some years are worse. So a properly programmed STIP or MPO long-range plan should IMHO utilize at least 8% per year in the out years on average, although on a plan with a 20-year horizon such as a 2040 plan, I would strongly recommend using 10% per year.
That price is more reasonable in that build year, if compared to other ones. If you consider the fact that area might be more developed, and if Camden County builds their neighborhoods and proposed developments south of the border, more traffic would be using US 17. Throw in the megasite as well, there's more. It could be justified, if they continue looking at the fact it's an interstate between Norfolk and Raleigh and "direct" connection to I-95, and not see through the additional mileage. That's currently how it seems. They wouldn't even be considering the project now if they were concerned with additional mileage, I've not seen anything citing the additional mileage from HRTPO, only "an interstate linking to I-95 South" which is desired by officials and some people in the area.
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 11:56:34 PM
They used current costs, with no inflation factoring. Try laying out a segmental build schedule of 2025 to 2040 and see what happens to that figure, it would triple or quadruple (and no I am not going to do the work this time, you can get the idea from the relative figures above).
I know it does not factor inflation. In the past though, you've mentioned it would be way higher in today's estimates.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 05, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 11:56:34 PM
N.C. is not Virginia.
The Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange is $20 million for construction.
The Interstate 81 Exit 14 Interchange Improvements is $30 million for construction.
The Route 29 at Route 666, Culpeper County interchange was $19 million for construction.
The I-95 bridge and interchange improvements at Lewistown Road, Hanover, was $29 million for construction.
Those interchanges were more complicated designs. They involved road widening, signalized improvements, etc. On US 17, a more complicated build with 4-lanes, traffic signals, etc. would be required at George Washington Hwy and Scenic Pkwy, but the Ballahack Rd and Cornland interchanges would be built on farmland, and require very simple designs, two lanes of traffic, etc.
Not really, Warrenton and Culpeper in particular are quite similar, an existing 4-lane highway, a connecting road, four ramps and an overpass bridge.
At least it is not like Maryland where I have noticed ever since the 1970s that a similar Maryland project will cost twice that of the Virginia project. The new US-15 Frederick Bypass interchange at Monocacy Blvd. is costing $50 million for construction and $71 million total.
https://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=FR5715110
Maryland is an -expensive- place to build heavy construction projects.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 05, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
So maybe around $40-50 million total for G.W. Hwy and Scenic Pkwy, and $25-30 million for Ballahack and Cornland. Throw in additional $30 million for other improvements, maybe around $95-110 million.
Also: Need an interchange at Grassfield Parkway, at Eaglet Parkway, an overpass for Douglas Road, an overpass for Glencoe Street, and at least an overpass at the major farm road just north of the state line, maybe ramps as well. I question the severing of W Road and the lack of an overpass connecting it on either side of US-17.
Keeping the old US-17 open as a secondary road would have been a real help in providing local access, and with the low traffic it would be fine for bicycles and pedestrians as well. But the City of Chesapeake strongly supported the permanent closure of nearly all of the road to motor vehicles.
For P.E., R/W, C.E. and Construction, overall it still would be $175 million or more, maybe as high as the earlier $250 million estimate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 05, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
If Chesapeake were to build these projects themselves, they could also use cheaper building methods, similar to the extremely low-cost interchanges in North Carolina. It may not meet VDOT's standard for new interchange construction, however it would still meet interstate standards, the NC examples I listed are on Future I-795 and Future I-74, and could work. If they want I-87 that badly, they could go for the cheapest options and build designs.
If they are building them that cheaply and they are well below VDOT standard for new interchange construction, I don't see how they could meet current Interstate highway standards. If the Tar Heel State is indeed building Interstate projects on the cheap, then I want nothing to do with that in Virginia and I will oppose that.
The whole concept of an Interstate highway is to meet the standards of the highest level highway system.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 05, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 11:56:34 PM
$175 million in 2020
Inflation-factored to 2030-2035 program funding
5% per year ------ $331 million
8% per year ------ $468 million
10% per year ----- $594 million
That price is more reasonable in that build year, if compared to other ones. If you consider the fact that area might be more developed, and if Camden County builds their neighborhoods and proposed developments south of the border, more traffic would be using US 17. Throw in the megasite as well, there's more. It could be justified, if they continue looking at the fact it's an interstate between Norfolk and Raleigh and "direct" connection to I-95, and not see through the additional mileage.
It is not. There is a substantial double penalty in both time and distance, compared to the current route.
I reviewed my website article on the US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake, written in 2006, and I see that the design speed is 100 kph or 62 mph, I recall that I derived that from a review of the final design plans at that time. There are substantial amounts of horizontal curvature on the highway that was a result of avoiding environmentally sensitive areas as much as possible.
Dominion Blvd. and I-464 are built to no higher geometric standards. Therefore there won't be a speed limit higher than 60 mph on those Virginia highways. This impacts (reduces) the whole idea of 70 mph speed limits providing improved travel times.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 05, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
That's currently how it seems. They wouldn't even be considering the project now if they were concerned with additional mileage, I've not seen anything citing the additional mileage from HRTPO, only "an interstate linking to I-95 South" which is desired by officials and some people in the area.
It is not even on the radar yet with HRTPO as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.
I intend to contact them and VDOT and find out what they are thinking, and if it is flawed or wrong, to educate them on the FActs.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 05, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 04, 2019, 11:56:34 PM
They used current costs, with no inflation factoring. Try laying out a segmental build schedule of 2025 to 2040 and see what happens to that figure, it would triple or quadruple (and no I am not going to do the work this time, you can get the idea from the relative figures above).
I know it does not factor inflation. In the past though, you've mentioned it would be way higher in today's estimates.
I think it is disingenuous for news services and business groups to cite a $1.2 billion estimate figure that is current dollars, on a project that would have a long term buildout program like that. On the face of it, it sounds like the final cost in 2040 (or whatever).
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
Not really, Warrenton and Culpeper in particular are quite similar, an existing 4-lane highway, a connecting road, four ramps and an overpass bridge.
The Culpeper Interchange required widening about .7 miles of road to 4-lanes, and had an urban design. Interchanges at Scenic Pkwy and George Washington Hwy will be like this (around $40 million total using this cost estimate), though the rural designs (2 lane overpass, 2 lane road, basic single lane ramps, no sidewalks, no signals, no R/W relocations, etc.) at Ballahack Rd and Cornland Rd will be significantly cheaper. 4-lane bridges, 3 lane ramps, widening a roadway costs more than basic ramps and a simple 2-lane bridge.
http://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Projects/Culpeper/asset_upload_file133_53290.pdf
The Warrenton intersection currently has 4-lanes, though the interchange is a complex design. Of course it has a higher cost. It will be like a design of a rural interchange when complete, but it's a complicated build, it involves relocating the roadway, complex designs, etc.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/WarrentonSI/d77384_exhibitCIM_FinalDesign.pdf
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
At least it is not like Maryland where I have noticed ever since the 1970s that a similar Maryland project will cost twice that of the Virginia project. The new US-15 Frederick Bypass interchange at Monocacy Blvd. is costing $50 million for construction and $71 million total.
https://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=FR5715110
Maryland is an -expensive- place to build heavy construction projects.
Costs get higher as you go north. Look at D.C. Projects are significantly more expensive up there then let's say down south.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
Also: Need an interchange at Grassfield Parkway, at Eaglet Parkway, an overpass for Douglas Road, an overpass for Glencoe Street, and at least an overpass at the major farm road just north of the state line, maybe ramps as well. I question the severing of W Road and the lack of an overpass connecting it on either side of US-17.
- Grassfield Pkwy - I've mentioned several times there's already a 4-lane frontage road between Cedar Rd and Grassfield Pkwy that provides this access, along with the 4-lane Cahoon Pkwy. The complicated design of an interchange here + easily accessible alternate routes would not warrant it.
- Eaglet Parkway - I'd say about 5 cars per day use this intersection. Where would an interchange here go or lead to? An interchange at George Washington Hwy about 1/2 mile away would provide access. An interchange at Eaglet Pkwy would be completely useless, even if there was unlimited money.
- Douglas Rd - Again, an overpass to where? The swamp? There's nothing on the west side of US 17. About 1 car per day or less even use this stretch of Douglas Rd. Even with unlimited money, this would be useless.
- Glencoe St - About maybe 3 cars per day use this. There's one property on the west side of U.S. 17, and the existing trail would be fine for that one property. Does not warrant an overpass, and residents on the east side can use the Ballahack Rd interchange about 1 mile away.
- West Road - This intersection was permanently severed 10 years ago with the construction of Scenic Pkwy, which provides adequate access. Once an interchange is built at Scenic Pkwy, it will continue to provide access. There's no justification or warranting reason to construct an overpass.
- Farm Road(?) - Again, the city has development plans for this area, and no interchange or overpass would be warranted for simply the farm. If development came, an interchange would be apart of the package for the development, not the I-87 upgrade. A minor frontage road extension from NC's proposal might be warranted IF the city does not develop this tract, but there's absolutely no justification for an entire interchange. NCDOT is proposing about 5 miles of frontage road up to the state line, where drivers would have to head all the way down to the Rest Area interchange to access US 17 / I-87. VDOT or Chesapeake would not waste the amount of money required to please this one property owner. It would be significantly cheaper to compensate for access lost. There wouldn't be an "legal" action, and if there was, there's no way VDOT / Chesapeake is in the wrong. Right-of-way and eminent domain has always been a thing in highway construction, and just because this guy owns a lot of land does mean mean he gets $10+ million for his own private interchange.
I highly doubt this would even be considered in design, studies, etc.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
Keeping the old US-17 open as a secondary road would have been a real help in providing local access, and with the low traffic it would be fine for bicycles and pedestrians as well. But the City of Chesapeake strongly supported the permanent closure of nearly all of the road to motor vehicles.
Correct. If they were to ever turn old US-17 into a full trail, that would involve purchasing the properties along the road and demolishing them. They would not build a private overpass when an adequate road exists, or if they converted it to a full trail, it would still be extremely cheaper to purchase the property than an overpass.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
If they are building them that cheaply and they are well below VDOT standard for new interchange construction, I don't see how they could meet current Interstate highway standards. If the Tar Heel State is indeed building Interstate projects on the cheap, then I want nothing to do with that in Virginia and I will oppose that.
The whole concept of an Interstate highway is to meet the standards of the highest level highway system.
Correct. The interchanges built do meet interstate highway standards, or they would not be apart of the interstate system. If Chesapeake builds interchanges in this concept, and is ready to request for I-87 designation, the roadway would meet full interstate highway standards, and would be eligible.
North Carolina doesn't get special exceptions, they must meet interstate standards as well.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
I reviewed my website article on the US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake, written in 2006, and I see that the design speed is 100 kph or 62 mph, I recall that I derived that from a review of the final design plans at that time. There are substantial amounts of horizontal curvature on the highway that was a result of avoiding environmentally sensitive areas as much as possible.
Dominion Blvd. and I-464 are built to no higher geometric standards. Therefore there won't be a speed limit higher than 60 mph on those Virginia highways. This impacts (reduces) the whole idea of 70 mph speed limits providing improved travel times.
US-17 Relocation can easily handle 70 MPH, I know it's breaking the existing limit, but I've driven it that fast in the past, and it's just perfectly safe. In fact, most drivers do around this speed, because it's designed so well. A speed study could be done once it's build to interstate standards to determine it can have a higher speed.
And I don't mean I was doing 65 or 70 MPH struggling to stay on the road, being reckless, etc., it was a comfortable speed, the curves were gradual, easy to maintain, and it feels like a posted 70 MPH interstate-highway already were there's no intersections. It still stuns me it's posted at 55 MPH.
Dominion Blvd was built to a design speed of 60 MPH, and can easily handle 65 MPH, again, I've done it safely before, as do most drivers.
Call me a speedaholic as you will, but just about everyone that drives that road will tell you it can easily handle 70 MPH. There's no tight curves that make you have to slow down. All the curves are gradual, have a safe design, etc. If anything, the speed limit 55 is dangerous in itself, because studies have shown when you post a speed limit well below the actual safe speed, it causes safety issues. If you try 55 MPH on that road, you will almost guaranteeably get passed, tailgated, etc. by a group of people doing 65 - 70 MPH. This applies to the Chesapeake Expressway / Rt 168 as well.
Just because it has "design speed" doesn't mean it can handle faster. They could build a 5 mile straight away road, with a 60 MPH design speed. That could easily be beaten and re-evaluated. The US-64 widening proposed in North Carolina (though not funded) would have over 10 miles of 4-lane divided straight away roadway with almost no intersections, 1 or 2 driveways, and a 55 MPH speed limit. Is that the highest it can "safely" handle, when they're building the roadway at the same geometric design as they build 70 MPH freeways?
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
It is not even on the radar yet with HRTPO as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.
I intend to contact them and VDOT and find out what they are thinking, and if it is flawed or wrong, to educate them on the FActs.
The desire is for a southerly interstate connection. From VDOT's standpoint, what seems like the cheapest option to accomplish this goal, to get it off their plate? Upgrading 70 miles of non-limited-access highway to interstate (US 58), or upgrading 13 miles of fully limited-access roadway to interstate?
If there was a care about the mileage, then the projects wouldn't have even been discussed or talked about. I see them advancing further with this in 5-10 years. The end goal is to connect Hampton Roads with I-95 via interstate-grade roadway, and the cheapest and most simplest way to accomplish this would be US-17.
I agree US 58 should be the direct connection, but clearly with the I-87 proposal, North Carolina constructing 90% of it, and VDOT only building and funding 10%, it sounds like a win-win for Hampton Roads and VDOT to lean towards US-17. It might not be the "most direct", however travel times would be at most 5 minutes slower, and most people would desire an interstate over an arterial highway, except maybe the big-rigs because of mileage. There's significant (12,000 AADT) US-58 traffic that's passenger vehicle and would divert to the new interstate routing due to preference. Mileage isn't a big factor for passenger vehicles, especially on a long-haul drive.
It would give HR & VDOT the desired southerly interstate connection.
This thread is turning into something reminiscent of the Borg-McEnroe volleys of the '80's -- back & forth with no "knockout" return. A lot of fun, however; carry on!
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
Not really, Warrenton and Culpeper in particular are quite similar, an existing 4-lane highway, a connecting road, four ramps and an overpass bridge.
The Culpeper Interchange required widening about .7 miles of road to 4-lanes, and had an urban design. Interchanges at Scenic Pkwy and George Washington Hwy will be like this (around $40 million total using this cost estimate), though the rural designs (2 lane overpass, 2 lane road, basic single lane ramps, no sidewalks, no signals, no R/W relocations, etc.) at Ballahack Rd and Cornland Rd will be significantly cheaper. 4-lane bridges, 3 lane ramps, widening a roadway costs more than basic ramps and a simple 2-lane bridge.
Your "back of the envelope engineering" is really getting tiresome.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
Also: Need an interchange at Grassfield Parkway, at Eaglet Parkway, an overpass for Douglas Road, an overpass for Glencoe Street, and at least an overpass at the major farm road just north of the state line, maybe ramps as well. I question the severing of W Road and the lack of an overpass connecting it on either side of US-17.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Grassfield Pkwy - I've mentioned several times there's already a 4-lane frontage road between Cedar Rd and Grassfield Pkwy that provides this access, along with the 4-lane Cahoon Pkwy. The complicated design of an interchange here + easily accessible alternate routes would not warrant it.
US-17 and Grassfield Parkway is a busy intersection, and you can't just close it and expect the traffic to use other very busy routes such as Cahoon Parkway and Cedar Road, without causing severe congestion, especially problematic for US-17 southerly traffic.
Elevate US-17 over Grassfield Parkway on embankment with retaining walls, bridge and urban ramps. Expensive.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Eaglet Parkway - I'd say about 5 cars per day use this intersection. Where would an interchange here go or lead to? An interchange at George Washington Hwy about 1/2 mile away would provide access. An interchange at Eaglet Pkwy would be completely useless, even if there was unlimited money.
It accesses at least 20 homes and connects them to US-17 and their other roads do not connect to US-17. It connects to and across US-17. You can't take that access away from them.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Douglas Rd - Again, an overpass to where? The swamp? There's nothing on the west side of US 17. About 1 car per day or less even use this stretch of Douglas Rd. Even with unlimited money, this would be useless.
Stop with this "about 1 (or 3) car per day" pseudo engineering!!
There is plenty of developable land on the west side of US-17, and the land owner might want to subdivide and build 20 or 30 homes there, maybe a lot more. You can't just cut off access to this land.
The Route 895 project severed a local road with about the same impacts. The local people complained so much that several years after Route 895 was open, VDOT awarded another project to reconnect the road via embankment and overpass bridge.
I find it disturbing seeing all your suggestions to pare down the design of any project to upgrade US-17 to freeway standards, to build an Interstate highway "on the cheap" and cutting off local access points which would surely arouse major local opposition.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Glencoe St - About maybe 3 cars per day use this. There's one property on the west side of U.S. 17, and the existing trail would be fine for that one property. Does not warrant an overpass, and residents on the east side can use the Ballahack Rd interchange about 1 mile away.
The city closed old US-17 to motor vehicle traffic, not to be used for residential access.
See my previous comment about future development of homes, you can't just cut off access to this land. Just because there is not much development now doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future on the west side of US-17.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
The whole concept of an Interstate highway is to meet the standards of the highest level highway system.
North Carolina doesn't get special exceptions, they must meet interstate standards as well.
From what you have cited in some instances, they -are- getting special exceptions. They wouldn't be the only state, look at PA with highways like the Schuylkill Expressway, and the PA Turnpike NE Extension (posted Interstate as recently as 1996).
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
I reviewed my website article on the US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake, written in 2006, and I see that the design speed is 100 kph or 62 mph, I recall that I derived that from a review of the final design plans at that time. There are substantial amounts of horizontal curvature on the highway that was a result of avoiding environmentally sensitive areas as much as possible.
US-17 Relocation can easily handle 70 MPH, I know it's breaking the existing limit, but I've driven it that fast in the past, and it's just perfectly safe. In fact, most drivers do around this speed, because it's designed so well. A speed study could be done once it's build to interstate standards to determine it can have a higher speed.
VDOT (or nearly any DOT) is not going to post a speed limit that is higher than the design speed. Period.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Just because it has "design speed" doesn't mean it can handle faster.
Yep, I have seen posters like you all over the Internet, saying that the speeds that they like to travel at are "perfectly safe". I wouldn't ride with them in their car ... that gives an image of the level of trust that I would have in their driving.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
It is not even on the radar yet with HRTPO as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.
The desire is for a southerly interstate connection.
By the Tar Heel State.
It is not even on the radar yet with VDOT or HRTPO or HRTAC as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
From VDOT's standpoint, what seems like the cheapest option to accomplish this goal, to get it off their plate? Upgrading 70 miles of non-limited-access highway to interstate (US 58), or upgrading 13 miles of fully limited-access roadway to interstate?
It won't "get it off their plate", as US-58 and I-95 will remain the preferred connection no matter what happens with Vanity Interstate VI-87. There will be major improvements on both I-95 and US-58 during the next 20 years.
There is a substantial double penalty in both time and distance, compared to the current route.
Norfolk I-264/I-464 Berkley Bridge <--> Nash Community College (1/2 mile west of I-95/US-64)
US-64/I-95/US-58/I-264
135 mi 2:12 hr
US-64/US-17/I-464
157 mi 2:33 hr
+16.3 % +15.9%
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 11:32:43 PM
It accesses at least 20 homes and connects them to US-17 and their other roads do not connect to US-17. It connects to and across US-17. You can't take that access away from them.
The homes there would have just as easy access to a George Washington Hwy interchange. I drive down US-17 all the time, and I've never seen traffic out of that point. It's always at George Washington Hwy.
(https://i.ibb.co/v1g6f1K/Eaglet-Pkwy-US17.png) (https://ibb.co/0q8R1qd)
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 11:32:43 PM
Stop with this "about 1 (or 3) car per day" pseudo engineering!!
There is plenty of developable land on the west side of US-17, and the land owner might want to subdivide and build 20 or 30 homes there, maybe a lot more. You can't just cut off access to this land.
When was protected wetlands & swamp developable land? Also, the city does not permit that type of development this far south, only rural developments. The interests are farther north. Either way, the farm tract on the east side can still access the Cornland Rd interchange via existing roads. It's not "cut off".
(https://i.ibb.co/1f96r58/Douglas-Rd.png) (https://ibb.co/yn8S61W)
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 11:32:43 PM
I find it disturbing seeing all your suggestions to pare down the design of any project to upgrade US-17 to freeway standards, to build an Interstate highway "on the cheap" and cutting off local access points which would surely arouse major local opposition.
I find it disturbing you want to construct interchanges at every access point. It's not to "build an interstate on the cheap", it's constructing major interchanges where traffic warrants. The points I've suggested to cut off do not impede any of this.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 11:32:43 PM
See my previous comment about future development of homes, you can't just cut off access to this land. Just because there is not much development now doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future on the west side of US-17.
Again, where's this development going to go?
(https://i.ibb.co/fHBh9ZF/Ballahack-Rd.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 11:32:43 PM
From what you have cited in some instances, they -are- getting special exceptions. They wouldn't be the only state, look at PA with highways like the Schuylkill Expressway, and the PA Turnpike NE Extension (posted Interstate as recently as 1996).
They've always built interchanges they way they have. There's no special exceptions. They do meet full interstate standards.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 11:32:43 PM
VDOT (or nearly any DOT) is not going to post a speed limit that is higher than the design speed. Period.
Yep, I have seen posters like you all over the Internet, saying that the speeds that they like to travel at are "perfectly safe". I wouldn't ride with them in their car … that gives an image of the level of trust that I would have in their driving.
The roadway has a design speed of 60 MPH because it's an at-grade roadway. Once it's upgraded to full interstate standards, the gentle curves and wide clearsides will easily up that design speed to 70 or 75 MPH. It would have to be re-evaluated of course. North Carolina's sections have design speeds of 60 MPH, but would be increased to a design speed of 75 MPH with the upgrade project. Many sections won't get curve realignments because they are already safe enough to drive that fast.
Plenty of roadways throughout Virginia and other states were previously posted 55 - 60 MPH, but once upgraded to interstate highway standards, were increased to 70 MPH. Speed studies -have- and -will- be conducted. If the curvature of the roadway is determined to be gentle enough to handle a higher speed (which they can), and at-grade intersections are removed, a higher design speed would be updated.
A very recent example - Indiana Route 37 north of Bloomington. Was posted 55 MPH, has significant curvature, etc. Finishing in November, interchanges were built, frontage roads constructed, etc. and the road become Interstate 69. The speed limit was then updated to 70 MPH because it was determined safe to do so. The curvature still exists, the general design of the older road still exists, but it was given an updated design speed. Same would happen to US 17.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
There is a substantial double penalty in both time and distance, compared to the current route.
Norfolk I-264/I-464 Berkley Bridge <--> Nash Community College (1/2 mile west of I-95/US-64)
US-64/I-95/US-58/I-264
135 mi 2:12 hr
US-64/US-17/I-464
157 mi 2:33 hr
+16.3 % +15.9%
Using current travel times & 55 MPH speed limits, yes. If you throw in an average speed of 70 MPH, using the formula, distance / speed, 157 / 70, that equals out to 2.24, or 2 hours and 14 minutes. 2 minutes slower than US 58.
There's no "double penalty", I wouldn't consider 2 minutes that, and if one drove 75 MPH most of that, which is a majority of drivers, would outrun US 58. If not that, a few red lights on US 58 add the 2 minutes, and I-87 beats it time wise. The “major improvements” along US 58 would not remove the traffic signals, simply would relieve congestion, which most of the time is not an issue that causes backups.
You act like the speed limits will not be increased along US 17, yet they will be increased by 15 MPH for 80 miles, and likely at least 10 miles into Virginia. Chesapeake is already considering raising that stretch to 60 MPH, and as I mentioned above, speed studies could increase that to 65 MPH or even 70 MPH once I-87.
Might just be cheaper to buy out those few homes and acres of farmland on the west side of 17. Then you wouldn't have to worry about providing access west of 17 except at locations where interchanges are already logical (like Ballahack).
Quote from: sprjus4speed studies could increase that to 65 MPH or even 70 MPH once I-87.
Only if VDOT undertakes safety and other line of sight improvements when/if that segment gets upgraded to Interstate. The existing 70 MPH Interstates were not automatically increased when the General Assembly passed the law allowing 70. They only increased to 70 when VDOT completed safety improvements along those segments. VDOT has minimum standards that a road must meet before they'll sign it with a higher limit.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 09:43:08 AM
Might just be cheaper to buy out those few homes and acres of farmland on the west side of 17. Then you wouldn't have to worry about providing access west of 17 except at locations where interchanges are already logical (like Ballahack).
Because it is not a "few" acres, it looks like at least 500 acres, with 1/3 of that currently utilized for farming and presumably suitable land for houses. There are plenty of single family homes on less than one acre right in that vicinity. Many more could be built in the future. The development-oriented city would want that.
These roads (Glencoe and Douglas) cross and access US-17 today. Can't sever them and render areas inaccessible.
If the city had kept old US-17 open to motor vehicle traffic then it might be possible. But they didn't.
Actually I think it was "overkill" by the city for turning the old highway over to bicycle and pedestrian use only. It could be a lightly traveled secondary road, giving permanent access to those lands, and still be a pleasant experience for bicycles and pedestrians.
I see on the City of Chesapeake 2035 Land Use Plan, that most of that area west of US-17 is classified for Recreation. That could change in the future to allow increases in development.
I see on the City of Chesapeake 2050 Master Transportation Plan that none of US-17 George Washington Highway has any improvements proposed, except for connecting to a relocated airport access road for Chesapeake Regional Airport, so that would be another interchange required if ever US-17 was upgraded to a freeway.
^ Upon further review, every acre of farmland west of 17 would be accessible from the logical interchange locations at Ballahack, Cornland, and BUSINESS 17. For the three fields near Glencoe and the house at the end of Glencoe, one would only need to reopen the old roadway between the canal parking lot and Glencoe. There's absolutely no need for an overpass at Glencoe. Even if the roadway isn't reopened on that stretch, buying out the house and providing a farm road to the northern field would be cheaper than an overpass.
The one house at the west end of Douglas could be bought out...there's nothing else west of 17 along Douglas, and east of 17 Douglas has access to Cornland via two other roads.
Everything further north is accessible from BUSINESS 17 or old Cedar Rd.
If the city wants to develop that area into residential, let THEM pay for the overpasses...or get them as proffers from the developers. Otherwise, as things exist now, there is no need for additional overpasses between Ballahack and BUSINESS 17.
**NOTE** - I have not analyzed north of BUSINESS 17 or near the state line yet. The latter (from the state line to the first curve) is technically not limited-access because of the pre-existing field accesses and not being on new alignment...Scott is correct upthread on this.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
^ Upon further review, every acre of farmland west of 17 would be accessible from the logical interchange locations at Ballahack, Cornland, and BUSINESS 17.
There is no Business 17 there, that is permanently closed to motor vehicles.
There is a mile-strip north-south of farmland on either side of Glencoe Street, and while the south end touches Ballahack Road, that would not provide access to any but that end of the tract.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
For the three fields near Glencoe and the house at the end of Glencoe, one would only need to reopen the old roadway between the canal parking lot and Glencoe.
They are not going to reopen the old roadway.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
There's absolutely no need for an overpass at Glencoe. Even if the roadway isn't reopened on that stretch, buying out the house and providing a farm road to the northern field would be cheaper than an overpass.
A "farm road"? How about a mile of paved service road north of Glencoe Road, and a mile of paved service road south of Glencoe Road, if new homes are to be built in those areas.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
If the city wants to develop that area into residential, let THEM pay for the overpasses...or get them as proffers from the developers.
And if the city and residents demand that VDOT provide an overpass rather than sever Glencoe Road?
Severance would be a hard sell to the local residents, and their demands for retention of access would be an easy sell to VDOT.
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 12:08:06 PMThere is no Business 17 there, that is permanently closed to motor vehicles.
There isn't...? (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6882963,-76.3470787,3a,75y,3.31h,87.49t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1socsBcYBpSFWp2lMhmpKvUg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DocsBcYBpSFWp2lMhmpKvUg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D41.58913%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100)
QuoteA "farm road"? How about a mile of paved service road north of Glencoe Road, and a mile of paved service road south of Glencoe Road, if new homes are to be built in those areas.
Again, if the city wants something above and beyond servicing the existing situation, they can fund it themselves or get a future developer to proffer it. Until then, there is no need for a paved road.
QuoteAnd if the city and residents demand that VDOT provide an overpass rather than sever Glencoe Road?
Severance would be a hard sell to the local residents, and their demands for retention of access would be an easy sell to VDOT.
I doubt the residents would demand an overpass...because they'd still have to backtrack down to Ballahack Rd to access 17. They'd be more likely to demand ramps at Glencoe than demand an overpass, but such an interchange would be a considerable cost for a benefit limited to the two dozen or so homes on Glencoe and Belle Haven.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 01:17:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 12:08:06 PMThere is no Business 17 there, that is permanently closed to motor vehicles.
There isn't...? (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6882963,-76.3470787,3a,75y,3.31h,87.49t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1socsBcYBpSFWp2lMhmpKvUg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DocsBcYBpSFWp2lMhmpKvUg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D41.58913%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100)
Well I know about that, I thought you were referring to the area around Douglas Road and Glencoe Street.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 01:17:38 PM
QuoteA "farm road"? How about a mile of paved service road north of Glencoe Road, and a mile of paved service road south of Glencoe Road, if new homes are to be built in those areas.
Again, if the city wants something above and beyond servicing the existing situation, they can fund it themselves or get a future developer to proffer it. Until then, there is no need for a paved road.
The city may well consider 'servicing the existing situation' to be keeping the road open across US-17, which would mean an overpass roadway and bridge.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 01:17:38 PM
QuoteAnd if the city and residents demand that VDOT provide an overpass rather than sever Glencoe Road?
Severance would be a hard sell to the local residents, and their demands for retention of access would be an easy sell to VDOT.
I doubt the residents would demand an overpass...because they'd still have to backtrack down to Ballahack Rd to access 17. They'd be more likely to demand ramps at Glencoe than demand an overpass, but such an interchange would be a considerable cost for a benefit limited to the two dozen or so homes on Glencoe and Belle Haven.
So they wouldn't be satisfied at all with a proposal to sever Glencoe Road, a road that has existed for maybe 50 years or more, and connected to the relocated US-17 via an at-grade intersection.
And again the landowners of those large tracts of land that could have dozens of homes built on them, the fact that there are not many homes there now wouldn't be the guiding factor of what they would want if the two roads were proposed to be severed. It would sever at least 300 acres of land from the public road system (and I am not going to spend the time to try to compute an exact amount), and I can't see any state or local DOT doing that.
And what about the forested land? I am not going to assume that most of that is unsuitable for residential development. In the case of wetlands, private developers have a much easier time getting permission for filling them in than compared to local and state governments.
These latest discussions reinforce my opinion that the city erred in closing the old US-17 to motor vehicle traffic. It could provide the local land access that severing Glencoe Street and Douglas Road would eliminate.
The canal path is already technically open to any vehicle for the 2 miles south of Ballahack (with requirement to give way to trail users), so having a tiny amount open around the Douglas Rd area doesn't seem insurmountable.
As for cutting off future development west of US 17, isn't this the precise purpose of Frontage Roads? An interchange at Ballahack with a frontage road along the west side of 17 whenever development actually comes seems reasonable.
The one house at the end of Douglas already has an improvised driveway to Douglas which is needed because there is a gate at the end of Douglas (albeit it was open when GMSV wandered by).
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 09:43:08 AM
Only if VDOT undertakes safety and other line of sight improvements when/if that segment gets upgraded to Interstate. The existing 70 MPH Interstates were not automatically increased when the General Assembly passed the law allowing 70. They only increased to 70 when VDOT completed safety improvements along those segments. VDOT has minimum standards that a road must meet before they'll sign it with a higher limit.
Of course, there would be studies that would be required, and it would have to be determined safe. But my point is that it is possible, with those evaluations & studies of course.
I wouldn't imagine safety improvements would be required, with the exception of interchanges obviously, but the majority of the roadway, where there's not open intersections, already designed to that standard of a rural interstate highway.
Doing a brief evaluation myself, I-295 north of Hopewell has some curves that have a smaller radius than those on US 17, and still has a 70 MPH speed limit. The curvature on US 17 shouldn't be an issue holding back a speed limit raise, as I've mentioned in the past, they are designed well enough to handle higher speeds than 55 MPH or 60 MPH.
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 10:02:19 AM
Because it is not a "few" acres, it looks like at least 500 acres, with 1/3 of that currently utilized for farming and presumably suitable land for houses. There are plenty of single family homes on less than one acre right in that vicinity. Many more could be built in the future. The development-oriented city would want that.
These roads (Glencoe and Douglas) cross and access US-17 today. Can't sever them and render areas inaccessible.
If the city had kept old US-17 open to motor vehicle traffic then it might be possible. But they didn't.
Actually I think it was "overkill" by the city for turning the old highway over to bicycle and pedestrian use only. It could be a lightly traveled secondary road, giving permanent access to those lands, and still be a pleasant experience for bicycles and pedestrians.
I see on the City of Chesapeake 2035 Land Use Plan, that most of that area west of US-17 is classified for Recreation. That could change in the future to allow increases in development.
I see on the City of Chesapeake 2050 Master Transportation Plan that none of US-17 George Washington Highway has any improvements proposed, except for connecting to a relocated airport access road for Chesapeake Regional Airport, so that would be another interchange required if ever US-17 was upgraded to a freeway.
Using the City of Chesapeake's property map (http://gisweb.cityofchesapeake.net/quicksearch/index.html), I compiled some interesting information. The areas you see in green, which is about 1,530 acres, is currently owned by either the City of Chesapeake, or conservation groups. The purple area, about 300 acres, is currently planned to be purchased by the city and converted into recreational use. The remaining red area, 87 acres, would loose full access and have to be purchased by VDOT or the city. All other farm tracts and land on the west side would have full access via interchanges at Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, and George Washington Hwy. Douglas Rd is fully surrounded by conserved land, so this could easily be closed without issue. It seems the end goal is to not construct an new major developments on the west side, and if proposed, the city would reject them being rezoned to residential. The west side of US 17 is a very sensitive area, and there's a reason most of the land is conserved + future recreational use.
(https://i.ibb.co/T00JDsQ/US17-Farm-Acres-West-Side.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
The Transportation Plan was last updated in 2014, before I-87. There's plans to update it in the next year or to, and there's been lots of mention about putting an upgraded US 17 into the plan.
As for the Airport Access Road, that proposal was the intention of the airport growing, and development being located on this giant farm tract. If that occurred, the city could construct interchange access, but it wouldn't be built under the I-87 upgrade. That's a completely different project, and VDOT would not pay for it.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
^ Upon further review, every acre of farmland west of 17 would be accessible from the logical interchange locations at Ballahack, Cornland, and BUSINESS 17. For the three fields near Glencoe and the house at the end of Glencoe, one would only need to reopen the old roadway between the canal parking lot and Glencoe. There's absolutely no need for an overpass at Glencoe. Even if the roadway isn't reopened on that stretch, buying out the house and providing a farm road to the northern field would be cheaper than an overpass.
The one house at the west end of Douglas could be bought out...there's nothing else west of 17 along Douglas, and east of 17 Douglas has access to Cornland via two other roads.
Everything further north is accessible from BUSINESS 17 or old Cedar Rd.
If the city wants to develop that area into residential, let THEM pay for the overpasses...or get them as proffers from the developers. Otherwise, as things exist now, there is no need for additional overpasses between Ballahack and BUSINESS 17.
**NOTE** - I have not analyzed north of BUSINESS 17 or near the state line yet. The latter (from the state line to the first curve) is technically not limited-access because of the pre-existing field accesses and not being on new alignment...Scott is correct upthread on this.
See my comments above, not every acre would be accessible, but most of those acres being inaccessible are currently owned by conservation groups or the City of Chesapeake. The rest, 87 acres, could be purchased by the city or VDOT.
I'm pretty sure the house at the west end of Douglas Rd is abandoned anyways.
There's a farm tract with access directly to US 17 north of Business 17, however there's also access to Old Cedar Road, so the US 17 entrance could be closed without issue.
All of US 17 from North Carolina to I-64 has full limited-access fences and right of way, with a few breaks in the fence for private access where required. Besides those breaks, the rest is fully limited-access. There's no continuous stretch of non-limited-access without fencing & proper right of way, only the few breaks.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 01:17:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 12:08:06 PMThere is no Business 17 there, that is permanently closed to motor vehicles.
There isn't...? (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6882963,-76.3470787,3a,75y,3.31h,87.49t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1socsBcYBpSFWp2lMhmpKvUg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DocsBcYBpSFWp2lMhmpKvUg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D41.58913%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100)
QuoteA "farm road"? How about a mile of paved service road north of Glencoe Road, and a mile of paved service road south of Glencoe Road, if new homes are to be built in those areas.
Again, if the city wants something above and beyond servicing the existing situation, they can fund it themselves or get a future developer to proffer it. Until then, there is no need for a paved road.
QuoteAnd if the city and residents demand that VDOT provide an overpass rather than sever Glencoe Road?
Severance would be a hard sell to the local residents, and their demands for retention of access would be an easy sell to VDOT.
I doubt the residents would demand an overpass...because they'd still have to backtrack down to Ballahack Rd to access 17. They'd be more likely to demand ramps at Glencoe than demand an overpass, but such an interchange would be a considerable cost for a benefit limited to the two dozen or so homes on Glencoe and Belle Haven.
If new homes are to be built in those areas, the new developments would have to attach to Glencoe St or Ballahack Rd either way today. US 17 has full limited-access in this stretch, and would not permit access. So, no new service roads would have to be built, where existing roads already service.
The severing of Glencoe St (which leads nowhere, and private access can be via the trail which is already a public roadway about half the length / bought out) would not have opposition, and closing Douglas Rd, which again is surrounded by conserved land and nothing out there would again have no opposition. If there was opposition, it would be over loosing access to US 17, not over not having an overpass to nowhere. In that regard, VDOT or Chesapeake would not build an interchange when another one about 1 mile away with easy access would serve just as well.
Interstate highways work this way - there's not an interchange at every single crossroad, and where there's not, there's generally alternate routes to reach an interchange. In this case there would be.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 07, 2019, 04:33:41 PM
The canal path is already technically open to any vehicle for the 2 miles south of Ballahack (with requirement to give way to trail users), so having a tiny amount open around the Douglas Rd area doesn't seem insurmountable.
As for cutting off future development west of US 17, isn't this the precise purpose of Frontage Roads? An interchange at Ballahack with a frontage road along the west side of 17 whenever development actually comes seems reasonable.
The one house at the end of Douglas already has an improvised driveway to Douglas which is needed because there is a gate at the end of Douglas (albeit it was open when GMSV wandered by).
There's about 170 ft between US 17 and the trail between Ballahack Rd and Glencoe St. I find it hard to believe there would ever be a development proposal for this area.
Either way - the city has the final say for any developments down here. All the land is zoned agricultural and rural, and would have to get approved for rezoning, and the location of the properties right along the Dismal Swamp, would likely not get approved. There's a reason this is all zoned recreational, and any development (though not much) is proposed on the -east- side.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 05:31:25 PM
Doing a brief evaluation myself, I-295 north of Hopewell has some curves that have a smaller radius than those on US 17, and still has a 70 MPH speed limit. The curvature on US 17 shouldn't be an issue holding back a speed limit raise, as I've mentioned in the past, they are designed well enough to handle higher speeds than 55 MPH or 60 MPH.
I worked on the design of that particular I-295 project in the early 1980s. Tell me, what are the curve radii on each curve on US-17? If you know so much, tell me, and then I will tell you if they meet 70 mph standards. Those curves on I-295 near the Appomattox River also have the maximum allowable superelevation.
Do you know what superelevation is without googling it? Do you know how it relates to design speed?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 05:31:25 PM
The Transportation Plan was last updated in 2014, before I-87.
In November 2012, NCDOT requested the addition of the HPC 13 corridor to the Interstate highway system through administrative options with the FHWA as I-44. VI-87 was approved by NCDOT in 2015.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 05:31:25 PM
There's plans to update it in the next year or to, and there's been lots of mention about putting an upgraded US 17 into the plan.
By N.C. business advocates.
The copy of the 2050 Master Transportation Plan for the City of Chesapeake that I found was published November 2016 (which is -after- 2015). It is a 2050 plan and there were no improvements listed on US-17 George Washington Highway, except the airport road intersection.
No such US-17 upgrades are programmed with VDOT or HRTPO or HRTAC as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.
Give it up. There is no official interest in Virginia for VI-87.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 05:31:25 PM
As for the Airport Access Road, that proposal was the intention of the airport growing, and development being located on this giant farm tract. If that occurred, the city could construct interchange access, but it wouldn't be built under the I-87 upgrade. That's a completely different project, and VDOT would not pay for it.
It is an expense related to upgrading US-17 to freeway standards, because it would be an at-grade intersection otherwise. True whether the city pays for it or whether VDOT pays for it, and there is no reason why the city might not request VDOT to build it.
So these would be required:
Ballahack Road (interchange)
Glencoe Street (overpass)
Douglas Road (overpass)
Cornland Road (interchange)
Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport (interchange)
Business US-17 (interchange)
Eaglet Parkway (if not an interchange at least an overpass)
Grassfield Parkway (interchange)
Here is another big expense for converting US-17 to an Interstate highway --
The I-464/I-64 interchange. The current interchange met Interstate standards at least for when I-64 and I-464 was built, but the mile of US-17 (old VA-104 as well as the 2016 freeway upgrade) immediately to the south does not. Signing a continuous Interstate highway thru there would be far below Interstate standards. Whether I-464 would remain and VI-87 would be signed up to I-64, or whether the whole thing would be VI-87, it would be a continuous Interstate highway between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464, and the horizontal curves and lane configurations and left-hand ramp terminals in the interchange area just south of I-64 would be far below Interstate standards, it would be an abomination to call that scheme an Interstate highway.
There would be some very expensive construction needed, with major bridgework, to provide an adequate and modern Interstate highway segment here, and it could cost north of $200 million, maybe a lot more. Another tab to be charged to the VI-87 proposal, something that can be left as is with US-17 remaining as a primary highway.
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 06:22:10 PM
I worked on the design of that particular I-295 project in the early 1980s. Tell me, what are the curve radii on each curve on US-17? If you know so much, tell me, and then I will tell you if they meet 70 mph standards.
North of the Appomattox River, one curve has a radii of around 2,300 ft, posted at 70 MPH.
Here's the ones on US 17 rounded, heading north to south -
4,100 ft, 7,500 ft, 2,500 ft, 2,600 ft, 4,000 ft, 2,500 ft, 3,800 ft, 2,500 ft, 2,900 ft, 3,100 ft, 5,000 ft, 2,800 ft.
The smallest curve radii on US 17 is at 2,500 ft, and none of the curves have the amount of superelevation that I-295 does.
So, by I-295's standards, US 17 would be eligible for 70 MPH. It's funny, you've mentioned the in the past substandard freeways on US 58 could hold 70 MPH with advisory speeds around sharp curves. Now you say the radii must meet 70 MPH standards in order to be posted on US 17, which they do nonetheless.
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 06:22:10 PM
In November 2012, NCDOT requested the addition of the corridor to the Interstate highway system through administrative options with the FHWA as I-44. VI-87 was approved by NCDOT in 2015.
By business advocates.
The copy of the 2050 Master Transportation for the City of Chesapeake that I found was published November 2016 (which is -after- 2015). It is a 2050 plan and there were no improvements listed on US-17 George Washington Highway.
No such US-17 upgrades are programmed with VDOT or HRTPO or HRTAC as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.
Give it up. There is no official interest in Virginia for VI-87.
Interstate 87 got approved in May 2016 by AASHTO. The city plan was fully revised in 2014, the updated November 2016 plan was to include local road improvements suggested from the Dominion Blvd Corridor Study, such as Cedar Road extension, etc. which was started before I-87, and did not include analysis on that, though it did cite a proposed US 17 interstate several times. The Nov. 2016 update did not include the rest of the roadways throughout the city. Either way, the city's interest on I-87 has come up over the past couple of years, with Dominion Blvd growth, and the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park.
The city requested VDOT and HRTPO to study I-87 back in December 2017, clearly citing interest in the project. They could have not requested any study on it.
The "Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Comprehensive Plan Strategies" concept for developing the future comprehensive plan which includes transportation, etc. published back in August 2018 mentioned the I-87 proposal several times.
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/planning/2035compplan/MACCPS+Final+Report.pdf
"Extension of the Dismal Swamp Canal Trail to North Carolina line should be pursued, perhaps in a partnership with the state, tied to creation of I-87."
"A wildlife crossing should be constructed in the vicinity of the Frank Williams Farm, especially if Route 17 is upgraded to I-87."
"Ms. Moore asked who is in charge of Light Rail Transit/Bus Rapid Transit implementation as identified in the study, as well as re-designating Dominion Boulevard/Route 17 as I-87."
"Ms. Barlow suggested that the state could help fund [trail extension to NC], especially if they want to see Route 17 upgraded to interstate status. She also mentioned the need to construct a wildlife crossing in the vicinity of the Frank Williams Farm Tract if the interstate is developed."
"Ms. Cox felt that the Dominion Boulevard Corridor Study seems like a positive initiative if it brings new revenues to the City. The proposed Interstate 87 in the vicinity could be a good fix for the region being essentially a cul-de-sac in the state. She agrees with Ms. Barlow that growth in rural Chesapeake needs to be approached “gracefully.” "
"Environmental concerns and economic opportunities in the corridor will need to be carefully balanced, especially if the roadway becomes I-87."City officials in regard to the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park in Southern Chesapeake also have cited in past discussions about how I-87 will run right along the megasite one day. Again, clearly there's interest.
The Port of Virginia wants the interstate concept to I-95 South, and has supported I-87. That's why VDOT is evaluating a southern I-95 interstate connection, and I-87 was listed as an option.
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 06:22:10 PM
So these would be required:
Ballahack Road (interchange)
Glencoe Street (ovepass)
Douglas Road (overpass)
Cornland Road (interchange)
Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport (interchange)
Business US-17 (interchange)
Eaglet Parkway (if not an interchange at least an overpass)
Grassfield Parkway (interchange)
Clearly, you have ignored the entire last post I made.
- Ballahack Rd - Yes, interchange
- Glencoe St - This access of land has access via the trail, which is already a public roadway for that stretch. North of Glencoe St, that land is conservation. It will continue to operate as such, and with the 1 house on the other side, the trail / existing public roadway will adequately operate, and would not require an overpass.
- Douglas Rd - The entire stretch of Douglas Rd on the west side of US 17 runs between protected and conserved land, as I mentioned in my previous post. Who would this overpass serve?
- Cornland Rd - Yes, interchange
- Airport Access Rd - Yes, if the city were to ever construct it in the future. A direct I-87 upgrade would likely focus on existing roadways, not future ones. Future ones could be added later via future interchanges. There's currently no public road at this location.
- Business US-17 - Yes, interchange
- Eaglet Pkwy - You still have yet to explain a logical reason why an interchange or overpass would be required here. The Business 17 interchange would be located 1/2 mile away, and provide access fully to properties near Eaglet Pkwy. It would a complete waste to construct an interchange here, or an overpass.
- Grassfield Pkwy - I've already mentioned, existing roads adequately serve this development. The expensive cost & complex design would not warrant construction here. You can replace this with Scenic Pkwy, which would require one.
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 06:22:10 PM
Here is another big expense for converting US-17 to an Interstate highway --
The I-464/I-64 interchange. The current interchange met Interstate standards at least for when I-64 and I-464 was built, but the mile of US-17 immediately to the south does not. Signing a continuous Interstate highway thru there would be far below Interstate standards. Whether I-464 would remain and VI-87 would be signed up to I-64, or whether the whole thing would be VI-87, it would be a continuous Interstate highway between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464, and the horizontal curves and lane configurations and left-hand ramp terminals in the interchange area just south of I-64 would be far below Interstate standards.
There would be some very expensive construction needed, with major bridgework, to provide an adequate and modern Interstate highway segment here, and it could cost north of $200 million, maybe a lot more. Another tab to be charged to the VI-87 proposal, something that can be left as is with US-17 remaining as a primary highway.
The existing interchange would meet interstate standards. The ramps have adequate width, full shoulders, and is limited-access fully to I-64. Left-hand exits aren't preferred, but there's nothing that says it's not permitted on the system. North Carolina signed I-73 through new construction & existing highways in Greensboro, and includes a single hand loop ramp for continuity, and a new construction left entrance north of Greensboro. AASHTO had no issues approving it for I-73 designation. But I suppose you'd say they get exemptions. There wouldn't be any issues here. This part of the interchange was built in 1999 with the Oak Grove Connector, and the US-17 part back in 2016, and meets full interstate highway standards.
Even if it actually was an issue, the I-87 designation can end just north of Great Bridge Blvd, where the mainline turn into the ramps. The ramps would fully connect it to I-464 / I-64, and the exit off I-64, I-464, and VA-168 can still read "I-87 South".
Just curious, what massive bridge construction and reconfigurations would be needed? If you could provide specific examples, that would be useful. Because as far as it is now, the interchange already meets interstate-highway standards, and any massive construction would be simply for additional capacity, and either way, no bridge would have to be replaced or widened.
The image below - the red represents I-87 designation, green represent full movement, interstate-standard ramps, and blue represents I-464.
(https://i.ibb.co/gFk7gFj/I87-Connecting-To-I64.png) (https://ibb.co/841B84K)
Quote from: Beltway on December 04, 2018, 12:55:58 AM
Other than a couple curves that might have an advisory speed of 65, those 3 bypasses could conceivably be 70 mph.
^^^
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
limited-access fully to I-64
Actually, there's no direct connection from I-64 "west" to US 17 south. What's even weirder is that this missing movement carries US 17, so it's signed on Great Bridge Blvd.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 07, 2019, 08:26:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
limited-access fully to I-64
Actually, there's no direct connection from I-64 "west" to US 17 south. What's even weirder is that this missing movement carries US 17, so it's signed on Great Bridge Blvd.
There's no direct connection between I-64 West to US 17 South because traffic counts do not warrant it. A driver following US 17 would continue on US 17 Business through Deep Creek, not take US 17 Mainline. The reason it was re-routed is so Dominion Blvd could be have a U.S. route and be eligible for federal funding (that failed, and we have the tolls today), and for trucks. Trucks are not permitted through Deep Creek, so for instance a truck coming from Bowers Hill bound to Elizabeth City or points south would have to go across the High Rise Bridge, take Great Bridge Blvd to U.S. 17 and take the Veterans Bridge back across.
Either way, Interstate 87 currently has full movement connections from I-64 Eastbound to I-87 Southbound / I-87 Northbound to I-64 Westbound, and technically could be signed immediately after AASHTO and FHWA approves it in Virginia because Dominion Blvd between I-64 and Grassfield Pkwy is built to full interstate highway standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 08:41:37 PM
The reason it was re-routed is so Dominion Blvd could be have a U.S. route and be eligible for federal funding
False. All that's required for federal funding is to be on the National Highway System, which it probably already was.
^ Indeed it was NHS. But even if it wasn't, it'd be eligible for Federal STP (Surface Transportation Program) funds. On top of that, EVERY public bridge in the nation is eligible for Federal bridge funding. So it's not that it wasn't eligible for funding...it was because neither VDOT nor the city had the funding at the time to build it toll-free.
Dominion Blvd was a Virginia state highway (VA 104) before it became part of a rerouted US 17. sprjus' mentioning of trucks is the primary reason why US 17 was rerouted onto Dominion Blvd...namely the drawbridge at Deep Creek (though it was also a hairy turn northbound at VA 165). There have been on-again/off-again plans to replace that bridge for at least 20 years now. The west end of the relocated VA 165 was built as such to accommodate what was then planned as a realigned replacement of the Deep Creek bridge north of the existing drawbridge.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 09:39:53 PM
^ Indeed it was NHS. But even if it wasn't, it'd be eligible for Federal STP (Surface Transportation Program) funds. On top of that, EVERY public bridge in the nation is eligible for Federal bridge funding. So it's not that it wasn't eligible for funding...it was because neither VDOT nor the city had the funding at the time to build it toll-free.
Dominion Blvd was a Virginia state highway (VA 104) before it became part of a rerouted US 17. sprjus' mentioning of trucks is the primary reason why US 17 was rerouted onto Dominion Blvd...namely the drawbridge at Deep Creek (though it was also a hairy turn northbound at VA 165). There have been on-again/off-again plans to replace that bridge for at least 20 years now. The west end of the relocated VA 165 was built as such to accommodate what was then planned as a realigned replacement of the Deep Creek bridge north of the existing drawbridge.
I recall reading in the past one of the reasons was due to funding, however I appear to have misread. Chesapeake tried for the longest amount of time to get public funding, including rejecting P3 proposals to replace it in hopes funding would eventually come. About 2010, they decided to go forth with the toll proposal themselves, and got about $90 million in public funds reducing bond & loan funding required, resulting in only $1 tolls. Originally, fully private funding proposals would have had rates that the Chesapeake Expressway has, about $3.
The Deep Creek Bridge Replacement has had a bumpy ride, but it's now fully funded and construction starts in September. It will be a 5-lane bridge, and use the existing alignment generally. It will also tie into the west end of the Moses Grandy Trl project done by the city around 2005, as you mentioned. It will cost around $48 million. It carries around 30,000 AADT, the same as Dominion Blvd does. That area is a severe bottleneck today traffic wise, with daily 2-4 mile backups. By 2022 when the project is complete, a lot of this should be relieved.
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/images/departments/public_works/Deep+Creek+Rendering.pdf
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Projects/Deep+Creek+Bridge+FS.pdf
The truck restrictions would be removed when the bridge is complete, allowing trucks bound to US-17 South towards North Carolina to take a much more direct route than the existing routing.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 06:22:10 PM
I worked on the design of that particular I-295 project in the early 1980s. Tell me, what are the curve radii on each curve on US-17? If you know so much, tell me, and then I will tell you if they meet 70 mph standards.
North of the Appomattox River, one curve has a radii of around 2,300 ft, posted at 70 MPH.
Here's the ones on US 17 rounded, heading north to south -
4,100 ft, 7,500 ft, 2,500 ft, 2,600 ft, 4,000 ft, 2,500 ft, 3,800 ft, 2,500 ft, 2,900 ft, 3,100 ft, 5,000 ft, 2,800 ft.
The smallest curve radii on US 17 is at 2,500 ft, and none of the curves have the amount of superelevation that I-295 does.
So you are eyeballing it and guessing.
You don't know what superelevation is. The curves on US-17 have minimal superelevation. The curves on I-295 have the maximum allowable superelevation. Superelevation means "banking the roadway" and those I-295 curves have a lot of it and that allows a considerably higher design speed for a particular curvature.
Think about why racetracks are banked as steeply as they are.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
So, by I-295's standards, US 17 would be eligible for 70 MPH. It's funny, you've mentioned the in the past substandard freeways on US 58 could hold 70 MPH with advisory speeds around sharp curves. Now you say the radii must meet 70 MPH standards in order to be posted on US 17, which they do nonetheless.
How many highways in South Hampton Roads are posted above 60 mph? None.
This one won't be either. Period.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 06:22:10 PM
The copy of the 2050 Master Transportation for the City of Chesapeake that I found was published November 2016 (which is -after- 2015). It is a 2050 plan and there were no improvements listed on US-17 George Washington Highway.
No such US-17 upgrades are programmed with VDOT or HRTPO or HRTAC as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.
Give it up. There is no official interest in Virginia for VI-87.
Interstate 87 got approved in May 2016 by AASHTO.
Only in the Tar Heel State.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
The city plan was fully revised in 2014, the updated November 2016 plan was to include local road improvements suggested from the Dominion
[. . . . . . big snip of the same-old same-old . . . . . .]
Get back to me when it is on those TIPs and master plans and land use plans.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
The "Mayor's Advisory Committee on Comprehensive Plan Strategies" concept for developing the future comprehensive plan which includes transportation, etc. published back in August 2018 mentioned the I-87 proposal several times.
A letter from the mayor. A few comments from meeting participants. Given how long HPC 13 and I-44 has been discussed, it would have made it to the 2016 update of the 2050 Master Transportation for the City of Chesapeake if they were seriously considering it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
Grassfield Pkwy - I've already mentioned, existing roads adequately serve this development. The expensive cost & complex design would not warrant construction here. You can replace this with Scenic Pkwy, which would require one.
US-17 and Grassfield Parkway is a large and busy intersection, and you can't just close it and expect the traffic to use other very busy routes such as Cahoon Parkway and Cedar Road, without causing severe congestion, especially problematic for US-17 southerly traffic. Scenic Parkway doesn't connect to Grassfield Parkway, you deceptive little troll.
Elevate US-17 over Grassfield Parkway on embankment with retaining walls, bridge and urban ramps, possibly at-grade ramps (ramp C-D) between that and the Cedar Road interchange. That may cost $30 million or more.
Traffic demands either retention of the existing intersection or replacement with an interchange, and the "expensive cost & complex design" is no justification for doing neither.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 06:22:10 PM
Here is another big expense for converting US-17 to an Interstate highway --
The I-464/I-64 interchange.
The existing interchange would meet interstate standards. The ramps have adequate width, full shoulders, and is limited-access fully to I-64. Left-hand exits aren't preferred, but there's nothing that says it's not permitted on the system.
Interstate standards of 1970, perhaps. Not today's Interstate standards. Single lane roadway northbound, left exit southbound, long low-speed curve on both mainline directions, frequent exits and entrances.
These roadways in the interchange are physically ramps, and as ramps they could meet Interstate standards, but not as mainline roadways, therefore they do not meet Interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
Even if it actually was an issue, the I-87 designation can end just north of Great Bridge Blvd, where the mainline turn into the ramps. The ramps would fully connect it to I-464 / I-64, and the exit off I-64, I-464, and VA-168 can still read "I-87 South".
So it wouldn't connect to I-64 or I-464, or only by primary highways. And you acknowledge that the connection is by "ramps" and not a mainline roadway.
So VI-87 is not important enough to actually connect to downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth via the Interstate highway system, that is what in effect you are saying.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
interstate-standard ramps,
The Interstate mainline needs -roadways- not ramps.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 07:27:44 PM
Just curious, what massive bridge construction and reconfigurations would be needed?
2-lane high-speed mainline roadways with at least 55 mph design between US-17 and I-464, and no left hand ramps. It may take elevated roadways.
If the 3-way I-64/I-464 Interstate interchange is going to become a 4-way Interstate interchange then the interchange needs to be upgraded, a semi-directional ramp is needed from WB (Inner Loop) I-64 to SB US-17, and that will be difficult to build without a lot of bridgework.
Your recommendations for cheap, inadequate, substandard and unsafe road designs, to satisfy your hunger for red-white-and-blue trailblazers, sickens me.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
So you are eyeballing it and guessing.
No, I used a mapping measuring tool. And one could easily eyeball it and be able to tell I-295 has sharper curves. You ask me to get the radii of each curve, I do, then you say I made them up. It's funny how this works. Also another thing, if the majority of traffic drives at 65 - 70 MPH already, that's about the 85th percentile. That's a major factor in determining the speed limit.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
How many highways in South Hampton Roads are posted above 60 mph? None.
This one won't be either. Period.
I-64 Express Lanes (prior HOV lanes) in Norfolk. Has been posted 65 MPH since the early 2000s. The curve north of Norview Ave has a radii of 1,700 ft, and minimal superelevation. There's also no clear side, 10 ft right (or left depending which direction of flow) shoulders, and barrier wall on both side.
I-64 in Chesapeake was posted at 70 MPH before 1973. Back in 2001, VDOT evaluated raising the speed limit on I-64 between Indian River & Bowers Hill, I-264 between Bowers Hill & Portsmouth, and I-664 to 65 MPH. Up in North Hampton Roads, the highest speed limit was always 60 MPH. It was recently raised to 65 MPH as far south as I-664. It could easily be considered on highways in South Hampton Roads in the future. The I-64 High Rise Bridge expansion to 6 lanes has a design speed of 70 MPH, which means it would be posted at 65 MPH.
You mentioned US 58 between Bowers Hill and the west end of the Suffolk Bypass could be posted at 70 MPH. That's in South Hampton Roads. So why isn't US 17 eligible? US 58 Bypass of Suffolk has lower standards than US 17 does. Up to 60,000 AADT, some questionable curves, minimal superelevation... why does that get special exceptions that US 17 doesn't get?
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
Get back to me when it is on those TIPs and master plans and land use plans.
Will do.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
A letter from the mayor. A few comments from meeting participants. Given how long HPC 13 and I-44 has been discussed, it would have made it to the 2016 update of the 2050 Master Transportation for the City of Chesapeake if they were seriously considering it.
It hasn't even been discussed or seriously considered in Chesapeake until about 2017. Before then, the talks were in North Carolina. Why would Chesapeake have requested a feasibility study? Clearly, there's interest.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
US-17 and Grassfield Parkway is a large and busy intersection, and you can't just close it and expect the traffic to use other very busy routes such as Cahoon Parkway and Cedar Road, without causing severe congestion, especially problematic for US-17 southerly traffic.
I'd like to see where you get that Grassfield is a large and busy intersection. It carries about 7,000 AADT. A majority is heading to destinations along Shillelagh Rd, etc. which would in fact use a Scenic Pkwy interchange. The traffic would be split between Cedar Rd & Scenic Pkwy interchanges, not all of the traffic isn't heading to the shopping center. There's plenty of other shopping areas that require some driving to get to off interstates either way, due to interchange location. Cahoon Parkway is not that busy of a roadway (10,000 AADT), and is currently being widened to 4 lanes. They also just built another 4-lane access road where new development is going to span to Cedar Road. And like I mentioned, a good amount of that traffic is heading towards Shillelagh Rd, etc. and would use a Scenic Pkwy interchange.
Let's wait and see what the city decides to do in the future.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
Scenic Parkway doesn't connect to Grassfield Parkway, you deceptive little troll.
Ah, I love how you have to name-call when others disagree with your concepts. I was saying you didn't list Scenic Pkwy having an interchange, and that should be filled in where you put Grassfield Pkwy. IE -
Quote from: Beltway on February 07, 2019, 06:22:10 PM
So these would be required:
Ballahack Road (interchange)
Glencoe Street (ovepass)
Douglas Road (overpass)
Cornland Road (interchange)
Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport (interchange)
Business US-17 (interchange)
Eaglet Parkway (if not an interchange at least an overpass)
Scenic Parkway (interchange)
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
Traffic demands either retention of the existing intersection or replacement with an interchange, and the "expensive cost & complex design" is no justification for doing neither.
Again, I'd like to see some proof.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
Interstate standards of 1970, perhaps. Not today's Interstate standards. Single lane roadway northbound, left exit southbound, long low-speed curve on both mainline directions, frequent exits and entrances.
These roadways in the interchange are physically ramps, and as ramps they could meet Interstate standards, but not as mainline roadways, therefore they do not meet Interstate standards.
Whoa, is I-87 going beyond I-64 / I-464? The I-87 designation would end at the interchange of I-64/I-464/VA-168, and ramps (that meet interstate standards) through the interchange would connect to I-464 and I-64. I-87's designation isn't continuing through the interchange and beyond there. See the map I posted in my previous post, which you blatantly ignored.
Either if it did for some reason, I-73 through Greensboro takes a 25 MPH loop ramp to continue, and was signed in 2008.
There's no interstate standard that declares left exits are prohibited. They're not preferred, but not prohibited. Could you cite where you found that?
The "single lane roadway northbound" is the ramp connecting to I-64, it's not the mainline anymore. The overall interchange mix begins at the north end of the Great Bridge Blvd bridges.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
2-lane high-speed mainline roadways with at least 55 mph design between US-17 and I-464, and no left hand ramps. It may take elevated roadways.
Not required by interstate design standards. The interchange is adequate, and it's not "cheap design", it's pointless design. There's no active congestion that a right exit to VA-168 South would fix.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
If the 3-way I-64/I-464 Interstate interchange is going to become a 4-way Interstate interchange then the interchange needs to be upgraded, a semi-directional ramp is needed from WB (Inner Loop) I-64 to SB US-17, and that will be difficult to build without a lot of bridgework..
There's almost no traffic that utilizes that movement. The previous interchange on I-64 WB is at US 17 Business, and traffic heading south would use that, and not back track to ride Dominion Blvd. The movement is provided presently by Great Bridge Blvd. A design exception would likely be granted due to the minor amount of traffic, and the amount of benefit to traffic a high-speed ramp would provide (which is none). Exceptions to the standards are made when it's not justified or reasonable. I'd like you to explain why it must be built, or no shield, and why exceptions for minor things such as this have never been granted and never will (which again, is false, and they have, even in the 21st century).
Either way, there's full movements to I-464 which would satisfy connecting to another interstate, and not having lack of connection. I-464 designation carries down to the US 17 ramps, south of I-64.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
Your recommendations for cheap, inadequate, substandard and unsafe road designs, to satisfy your hunger for red-white-and-blue trailblazers, sickens me.
Inadequate - the entire design is perfectly adequate today, and conform to interstate standards. You have this belief that left exits are prohibited on the interstate system, which is false. You also have this belief that interstate-to-interstate connections must be posted at 55 MPH, which again, is false. The I-87 mainline designation would end at the interchange. Within the interchange's boundary, high speed, 45 MPH ramps connect them, and are perfectly adequate, and your designs would do nothing but waste $200 million to satisfy your right exit theory, and 55 MPH theory, when the existing interchange has no issues whatsoever that those left exits and 45 MPH ramps cause. It's not like the left exit is heading to a local street, it's a major highway connection ramp.
Substandard - Every part of the interchange south of I-64 was built in 1999 and 2016, feature high speed 45 MPH direct ramps, have full 10 foot paved shoulders, 4 foot left shoulders. How is in substandard when I-87 mainline will end, and transition into ramps connecting to I-64 and I-464?
Unsafe - Again, 45 MPH high speed ramps, left high speed exits (not a 25 MPH left exit), full shoulders... how is it unsafe? If it was unsafe, then designs as recent as 2016 would not have constructed it that way.
------
It's anti I-87 rhetoric, that's strictly it. Making up your own interstate standards, proposing $200+ million projects strictly so it has right exits and 55 MPH direct ramps to be signed I-87 when the interchange already is adequate and meets your version of interstate-highway standards, proposing interchanges at every crossroad and even some places where roads don't currently exist or else it can't happen, saying higher speeds can't happen because it doesn't conform to some mystery standard you have yet to indicate, yet US 58, more substandard than US 17, can have 70 MPH speeds.
We get you hate the highway, but could you at least make some reasonable concepts, and use real interstate standards instead of made up ones, if you're going to make recommendations for a Virginia upgrade? For instance, we both know the I-64 / I-464 interchange meets current interstate standards, and that I-87 would end entering the interchange, and the existing ramps would connect it to I-64 and I-464. All of this is just to drive the cost way up and to make it look unfeasible, when in reality, building it with 4 interchanges, and under $150 million isn't "cheap" and "substandard", it's all that's realistically needed. It would conform to modern interstate highway standards (the real version), and would be fully standard. It would take some adjusting for locals, but everybody would have access. All interstate upgrades work this way. People have to use the frontage road (or in this case alt. routes which are adequate) to reach the interchange instead of turning directly onto the highway. You helped in construction on I-95 south of Richmond. Every home and cross road along that route lost direct access to US 301, and now has to use frontage roads to meet the interstate mainline. It's similar this way, just it's not a direct frontage road, but rather a mixture of alternate routes that serve the same purpose.
Call me a troll, as you will, but I'm just trying to be real here.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 12:11:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
There is a substantial double penalty in both time and distance, compared to the current route.
Norfolk I-264/I-464 Berkley Bridge <--> Nash Community College (1/2 mile west of I-95/US-64)
US-64/I-95/US-58/I-264
135 mi 2:12 hr
US-64/US-17/I-464
157 mi 2:33 hr
+16.3 % +15.9%
Using current travel times & 55 MPH speed limits, yes. If you throw in an average speed of 70 MPH, using the formula, distance / speed, 157 / 70, that equals out to 2.24, or 2 hours and 14 minutes. 2 minutes slower than US 58.
Both routings average about 61.4 mph and about half of each already has 70 mph.
Given that US-17 and I-464 in Virginia will be no more than 60 mph, that cuts at least 2 mph off of your 70. Given that most motorists would stop for a rest or food break on each (I would rarely drive 157 miles without one stop, and cars with 3 or more people would be almost certain to make a stop, and it is 207 miles between Norfolk and Raleigh on HPC 13), that further deteriorates an average speed and more so for the putatively 'higher average speed' route.
There are pending USDOT policy initiatives to obtain legislation that would limit large trucks to 60 mph via governors installed by the manufacturers. That would put a further crimp on the speed ideas and any advantage from 70 mph speed limits.
BTW, we are calculating based on speed limits. If a Roger Ramjet type wants to drive them far in excess of the speed limit then all bets are off, to the point of being irrelevant (to quote Mike Dahmus).
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
I-64 in Chesapeake was posted at 70 MPH before 1973.
What happened before 1973 is irrelevant to the speed limits that are in force -today- in nearly every major metro area in the U.S., very few are even above 55 mph.
Most of I-495 in Maryland was posted at 70 mph, and in Virginia at 65 mph. That is all well and good, but that highway has been 55 mph ever since 1973 on the general purpose lanes. I-695 in Maryland is 55 mph.
Both states had split speed limits then, 70/60 car/truck, and 65/55 car/truck, so there was little or no difference for large trucks between pre-1973 and today for the trucks on these metropolitan highways.
Only time will tell, but count me very surprised if any general purpose roadway in South Hampton Roads is ever posted above 60 mph.
I know about the I-64 reversible HOT lanes, but express lanes with no large trucks and minimal entry and exit points have been posted higher.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 07, 2019, 12:11:10 AM
There's no "double penalty", I wouldn't consider 2 minutes that, and if one drove 75 MPH most of that, which is a majority of drivers, would outrun US 58. If not that, a few red lights on US 58 add the 2 minutes, and I-87 beats it time wise. The "major improvements" along US 58 would not remove the traffic signals, simply would relieve congestion, which most of the time is not an issue that causes backups.
You act like the speed limits will not be increased along US 17, yet they will be increased by 15 MPH for 80 miles, and likely at least 10 miles into Virginia.
Parts of that N.C. 80 miles already have 60 mph and 70 mph.
You act like the speed limits will not (or can not) be increased along US-58, yet according to your 'advocacy standards', the bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland could be increased to 70 mph, along with the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill after the two at-grade intersections have been replaced with interchanges ... and the 24 miles of expressway-like (*) highway between the Courtland and Emporia bypasses could be increased to 65 mph, along with the 5 miles of expressway-like highway between the Franklin and Holland bypasses. There are relatively few signals on US-58, and the 2020 project to 6-lane and access-manage the 3.5 miles just west of Suffolk will alleviate congestion and increase travel speeds.
(*) Modification to state speed limit legislation to say something like "nonlimited-access access-managed 4-lane divided highways are allowed a statuary maximum of 65 mph". At least indirectly those segments are access managed.
So using these speed limits it could be as little difference as say 66 mph average on the current route and 68 mph average on the VI-87 route, with the concomitant 21 minute time difference being not much different than today. So VI-87 still would be at least 15% more timewise than US-58 and I-95, as well as being 16% more miles.
You need to let go of this excessive focus with speed limits, as no one can predict what will happen with them over the next 20 years.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 12:44:11 AM
Both routings average about 61.4 mph and about half of each already has 70 mph.
Given that US-17 and I-464 in Virginia will be no more than 60 mph, that cuts at least 2 mph off of your 70. Given that most motorists would stop for a rest or food break on each (I would rarely drive 157 miles without one stop, and cars with 3 or more people would be almost certain to make a stop, and it is 207 miles between Norfolk and Raleigh on HPC 13), that further deteriorates an average speed and more so for the putatively 'higher average speed' route.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 12:44:11 AM
Parts of that N.C. 80 miles already have 60 mph and 70 mph.
You act like the speed limits will not (or can not) be increased along US-58, yet according to your 'advocacy standards', the bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland could be increased to 70 mph, along with the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill after the two at-grade intersections have been replaced with interchanges ... and the 24 miles of expressway-like (*) highway between the Courtland and Emporia bypasses could be increased to 65 mph, along with the 5 miles of expressway-like highway between the Franklin and Holland bypasses. There are relatively few signals on US-58, and the 2020 project to 6-lane and access-manage the 3.5 miles just west of Suffolk will alleviate congestion and increase travel speeds.
(*) Modification to state speed limit legislation to say something like "nonlimited-access access-managed 4-lane divided highways are allowed a statuary maximum of 65 mph". At least indirectly those segments are access managed.
So using these speed limits it could be as little difference as say 66 mph average on the current route and 68 mph average on the VI-87 route, with the concomitant 21 minute time difference being not much different than today. So VI-87 still would be at least 15% more timewise than US-58 and I-95, as well as being 16% more miles.
You need to let go of this excessive focus with speed limits, as no one can predict what will happen with them over the next 20 years.
I did some math to calculate times with many different speed factors, etc. from travel time between Nash Community College and the Berkley Bridge in Norfolk. If you'd like, I'll post my work. I took the speed limits of each individual segment, came up with a travel time based on distance / time, and added all the travel times together. The results are posted below.
For adding new, currently not proposed speed limits, I took your 65 MPH and 70 MPH concepts for US 58, along two different factors of 65 MPH or 70 MPH on rural US 17 in Chesapeake.
I also came up with a concept of I-87 was increased to 75 MPH in North Carolina. It was proposed legislation a few years back that certain rural segments of lightly traveled freeways could be increased to 75 MPH, and I-87 would fall into that category, being lightly traveled. I-95 wouldn't, because it has heavy traffic, and likely would have issues. The entire I-87 corridor is being designed with a design speed of 75 MPH, so a future increase could happen if new legislation was passed.
If you can add proposed legislation changes to allow 65 MPH on non-limited-access highways as a potential factor, I'll add 75 MPH as a potential factor for I-87.
Here's what I came up with -
EXISTING TIMES -
HPC #13 (existing) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Drive Time - 2 hours 32 minutes
Average Speed - 62.1 MPH
I-95 / U.S. Route 58 (existing) -
Total Distance - 136 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 12 minutes
Average Speed - 61.8 MPH
FUTURE TIMES -
Interstate 87 (60 MPH in Virginia, 70 MPH in North Carolina) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 17 minutes
Average Speed - 68.9 MPH
ADDING NEW SPEED LIMITS -
I-95 / U.S. Route 58 (70 MPH on bypasses + Bowers Hill to Suffolk, 65 MPH on existing 60 MPH non-freeway) -
Total Distance - 136 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 6 minutes
Average Speed - 64.8 MPH
I-95 / U.S. Route 58 (70 MPH on bypasses + Bowers Hill to Suffolk, no rural increase) -
Total Distance - 136 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 9 minutes
Average Speed - 63.5 MPH
Interstate 87 (12.9 miles of rural US 17 upgraded to 65 MPH in VA)
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 15 minutes
Average Speed - 69.2 MPH
Interstate 87 (12.9 miles of rural US 17 upgraded to 70 MPH in VA)
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 14 minutes
Average Speed - 69.7 MPH
Interstate 87 (133 miles of rural NC I-87 upgraded to 75 MPH, 60 MPH max in VA) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 9 minutes
Average Speed - 73 MPH
Interstate 87 (133 miles of rural NC I-87 upgraded to 75 MPH, rural US 17 upgraded to 65 MPH in VA) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 7 minutes
Average Speed - 74.1 MPH
Interstate 87 (133 miles of rural NC I-87 upgraded to 75 MPH, rural US 17 upgraded to 70 MPH in VA) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 6 minutes
Average Speed - 74.8 MPH
----------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION -There's a few different options here -
If U.S. Route 58 stays the same, it would remain at 2 hours 12 minutes, and I-87 was increased to 70 MPH in NC, and 60 MPH in VA, it would be around 2 hours 17 minutes, a 5 minute difference.
If U.S. Route 58 has rural segments upgraded to 65 MPH after legislation change, bypasses to 70 MPH, it would be 2 hours 6 minutes, an 11 minute difference. By this point, US 58 is the preferred option.
If U.S. Route 58 has only bypasses increased to 70 MPH, it would be 2 hours 9 minutes, an 8 minute difference. Still, learning slightly towards US 58.
If I-87 was increased to 70 MPH in Virginia, it would be 2 hours 14 minutes, 3 minutes faster than no increases, competing closer with a US 58 70 MPH bypass option.
I-87 was increased to 75 MPH in NC after legislation change, 70 MPH in Virginia, it would be 2 hours 6 minutes, 6 minutes faster than existing US 58, and 3 minutes faster than a US 58 70 MPH bypass option. If US 58 was 65 MPH on rural + 70 MPH on bypass, the times would be the exact same.
Like you said, we have no idea what the speed limits will be in 20 years. They can change to make US 58 faster, they could change to make I-87 the same or faster, nobody knows. But there's not ever going to a substantial increase of travel time along I-87 unless US 58 was hiked up significantly, 70 MPH on bypasses, 65 MPH on rural.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 12:44:11 AM
You act like the speed limits will not (or can not) be increased along US-58, yet according to your 'advocacy standards', the bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland could be increased to 70 mph, along with the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill after the two at-grade intersections have been replaced with interchanges ... and the 24 miles of expressway-like (*) highway between the Courtland and Emporia bypasses could be increased to 65 mph, along with the 5 miles of expressway-like highway between the Franklin and Holland bypasses. There are relatively few signals on US-58, and the 2020 project to 6-lane and access-manage the 3.5 miles just west of Suffolk will alleviate congestion and increase travel speeds.
It's funny, because you keep saying US 17 in Chesapeake will never be increased beyond 60 MPH, and you'd be surprised to see speeds higher than 60 MPH in South Hampton Roads in one topic, however when you jump to US 58, now it can be 70 MPH all the way to Bowers Hill, and 70 MPH on substandard bypasses that have lower standard than US 17. You propose legislation changes to US 58 to make it 65 MPH on non-limited-access, well the same could be said about North Carolina's previous legislation proposal which almost passed, about rural, lightly traveled segments of interstate being increased to 75 MPH, which would apply to I-87, because it would likely not have an AADT higher than 20,000, whereas I-95 by that point would be over 60,000 or 70,000 AADT, and not be eligible for an increase.
Like you said, we have no idea what the speed limits will be in 20 years. They can change to make US 58 faster, they could change to make I-87 the same or faster, nobody knows. But there's not ever going to a substantial increase of travel time along I-87 unless US 58 was hiked up significantly, 70 MPH on bypasses, 65 MPH on rural.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 12:44:11 AM
There are pending USDOT policy initiatives to obtain legislation that would limit large trucks to 60 mph via governors installed by the manufacturers. That would put a further crimp on the speed ideas and any advantage from 70 mph speed limits.
That's been proposed legislation for years, and has faced major opposition by truckers. The majority of the advantage of a 70 MPH would be felt by the average passenger vehicle, going on a long roadtrip. They can leave Hampton Roads, hop on the interstate, and start cruising at 70 MPH, and not have to sit through traffic lights on US 58 and hold at 45 - 60 MPH for 80 miles until hitting I-95. I'd certainly use the route if it existed today, I'm sure plenty of locals (not people on the forum who live hundreds of miles of away and think 15-20 additional miles, yet the same travel time at 70 MPH in a passenger vehicle is a waste) would agree.
I've said before, trucks are a different story.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 09, 2019, 05:08:51 PM
Like you said, we have no idea what the speed limits will be in 20 years. They can change to make US 58 faster, they could change to make I-87 the same or faster, nobody knows. But there's not ever going to a substantial increase of travel time along I-87 unless US 58 was hiked up significantly, 70 MPH on bypasses, 65 MPH on rural.
Let me cut right to the chase. I'm not going to continue expending (probably wasting) my time discussing speed limit scenarios.
Looking at 2040, the year that NCDOT says would be their tentative completion date, there is no way to predict what will happen with speed limits by then, and I showed plausible scenarios whereby the average travel times on both corridors could be about same or within 2 mph. You also ignored factoring in a stop break of about 10 minutes or more on each route, which would impact the average speeds.
Given that, I see no engineering logic at all in using speed limits as a predictor/justifier of building a new corridor when there is no real way to know what the speed limits will be then.
You also didn't factor in any major improvements (as in major widening and access control upgrades) to US-58 or I-95, and by 2040 it could be anywhere from a modest amount to a major amount, and that could impact speed limits as well, and travel times.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 06:53:56 PM
You also ignored factoring in a stop break of about 10 minutes or more on each route, which would impact the average speeds.
It wouldn't have an impact to which route is faster. A 10 minute stop on I-87 would add 10 minutes, just as a 10 minute stop on US 58 would add 10 minutes. At that point, it's just travel time, not which route is faster.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 06:53:56 PM
Given that, I see no engineering logic at all in using speed limits as a predictor/justifier of building a new corridor when there is no real way to know what the speed limits will be then.
It's not currently a predictor / justifier for building it. They want to bring US 17 up to interstate standards to connect the cities and towns along the route to I-95 and to Norfolk via an interstate highway. It will end up connecting via Raleigh to Hampton Roads for those who want an interstate trip at 70 MPH and no stop lights, but will mainly connect the towns to Norfolk via an interstate highway, and to I-95. The hopes is there will be more growth into North Carolina from Hampton Roads, and to expand businesses & economic growth south of the core (Hampton Roads, Norfolk, etc.) because it will have interstate access. A lot of businesses will not relocate if there's no interstate access within 10 miles. I believe the most important upgrade is the first one they proposed, between Elizabeth City and Norfolk, especially to achieve the goal of expanding business growth south with a new interstate highway. This section also carries 13,000 AADT, and has new residential suburbs and growth proposed south of the state line. As Elizabeth City continues to grow, it could end up reaching 20,000 AADT by 2040. Elizabeth City is part of Hampton Roads, and has no interstate connection to the core. This leg of highway being a freeway was considered in since the 70s, and when the bypasses of South Mills, Morgans Corner, and the relocated US 17 north of the existing freeway bypass were built, it was the intent it would end up being a freeway one day.
I know it may not seem like the best reason to justify an upgrade by Virginia standards, as the existing highway is adequate, however that's the official reasoning, and that's what they intend on doing by 2040, as you mention. Chesapeake has talked about finishing the freeway connection to *I-64, and it's been discussed occasionally by HRTPO, and may or may not get built in Virginia.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 06:53:56 PM
You also didn't factor in any major improvements (as in major widening and access control upgrades) to US-58 or I-95, and by 2040 it could be anywhere from a modest amount to a major amount, and that could impact speed limits as well, and travel times.
I added scenarios where US 58 has been upgraded to a full freeway between Suffolk and Bowers Hill, US 58 is a rural 65 MPH roadway, and the bypasses are posted at 70 MPH. I did a scenario where the Courtland - Franklin Bypass connector is built, but did not change the travel time by any minutes, meaning it could save maybe 20 - 40 seconds through that corridor. For the most, you can already drive the 2 miles at 55 MPH without getting hit by the red light, and the Courtland Interchange eliminated a light.
The 6-lane widening west of Suffolk would not increase the speed limit. It would be a 6-lane urban boulevard with sidewalks, crosswalks, 45 MPH speed limit, and actually add a few additional traffic lights. I have the design plans if you are curious. Granted, the lights would likely be synchronized to provide continuous flow. Either way, my average speed calculations did not factor any red lights, just continuous flow at the speed limit. I-87 would not have any red lights, a continuous 70 MPH interstate highway, whereas US 58 would have about 10.
As for I-95, no improvements would increase the speed limit, it's already maxed out at 70 MPH. Again, my average speed calculations did not factor traffic and congestion, so even if a widening is done, the speed is still 70 MPH. It's interesting to note, a lot of I-95 today is 65 MPH south of Rocky Mount. The 8-laning that starts this year between Fayetteville and I-40 is keeping its speed of 65 MPH, and not being designed for a 70 MPH speed limit (design speed 75). I don't think any 6-laning north of Rocky Mount would decrease the speed, but you never know.
*updated to correct "I-87" to "I-64".
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 09, 2019, 07:29:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 06:53:56 PM
Given that, I see no engineering logic at all in using speed limits as a predictor/justifier of building a new corridor when there is no real way to know what the speed limits will be then.
It's not currently a predictor / justifier for building it. They want to bring US 17 up to interstate standards to connect the cities and towns along the route to I-95 and to Norfolk via an interstate highway. It will end up connecting via Raleigh to Hampton Roads for those who want an interstate trip at 70 MPH and no stop lights, but will mainly connect the towns to Norfolk via an interstate highway, and to I-95. The hopes is there will be more growth into North Carolina from Hampton Roads, and to expand businesses & economic growth south of the core (Hampton Roads, Norfolk, etc.) because it will have interstate access. A lot of businesses will not relocate if there's no interstate access within 10 miles.
That may benefit those northeastern N.C. counties, but it won't benefit Virginia, where there are already plenty of businesses and distribution centers along US-58 and I-64 and VA-168 and other highways, and more to come. And it gets back to an Interstate highway not being warranted for only connecting a few small towns when there is no need for the longer corridor, when a 4-lane high speed highway already connects those N.C. towns to Raleigh.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 09, 2019, 07:29:41 PM
As for I-95, no improvements would increase the speed limit, it's already maxed out at 70 MPH.
If the original section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike can be posted at 70 mph for cars, trucks and buses, again, you cannot predict future speed limits in 2040. A modernized I-95 with 6 or more lanes and full 12-foot right and left shoulders, might carry the 75 mph that you proposed, in areas with curves not greater than 2 degrees and 30 minutes.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 08:07:36 PM
That may benefit those northeastern N.C. counties, but it won't benefit Virginia, where there are already plenty of businesses and distribution centers along US-58 and I-64 and VA-168 and other highways, and more to come.
It will benefit Chesapeake along U.S. 17. U.S. 17 is a failing corridor right now. The developments along Grassfield Pkwy are dead, there's numerous of store fronts abandoned, Kroger had planned to move in, though has canceled the project indefinitely. There's a few active businesses in the area, like some fast-food, restaurants, a mattress store, and a couple others, though not too much. Cedar Rd is the most successful thing over there. Scenic Pkwy was supposed to be an industrial park, but failed, so they're building neighborhoods. That area has not seen good success really, and I-87 could boost is significantly, and Chesapeake may be willing to take the chance, as seen by their feasibility study proposal, potential additional in the next comp. plan, etc.
US-58 is very successful economically, and also I-64. A major trucking corridor, and an interstate. An interstate would bring benefits south of I-64. VA-168 is a tourist route to the Outer Banks, is crowded on summer weekends, and has successful retail, mainly off Exit 8, though no warehouses, distributions center, etc. exist on the route. Any big developments stop really south of I-64. Continuing interstate to the south would open up new opportunities not available with a "4-lane high speed highway".
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 08:07:36 PM
And it gets back to an Interstate highway not being warranted for only connecting a few small towns when there is no need for the longer corridor, when a 4-lane high speed highway already connects those N.C. towns to Raleigh.
North Carolina standards vs. Virginia standards. They have plans to upgrade numerous "4-lane high speed highways" all around the state to freeways eventually, and this is one piece. Eventually, US 17 is slated to become a freeway down to South Carolina, and this US 17 80 mile upgrade is a significant piece of that. Virginia operates differently, where they "preserve" their arterial highways and apply access-management. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see why you want to stop the upgrade just because it doesn't meet Virginia's policies on where a freeway is warranted or not. Virginia and North Carolina are two different states, and do things differently.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 08:07:36 PM
If the original section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike can be posted at 70 mph for cars, trucks and buses, again, you cannot predict future speed limits in 2040.
But apparently US 17, a modern & safer design in Chesapeake can / will never be posted above 60 MPH.
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
How many highways in South Hampton Roads are posted above 60 mph? None.
This one won't be either. Period.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 11:32:43 PM
VDOT (or nearly any DOT) is not going to post a speed limit that is higher than the design speed. Period.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 08:07:36 PM
A modernized I-95 with 6 or more lanes and full 12-foot right and left shoulders, might carry the 75 mph that you proposed, in areas with curves not greater than 2 degrees and 30 minutes.
The amount of traffic that utilizes the roadway, I wouldn't see them posting 75 MPH on it. By the soon-to-be under construction widening plans, it appears they are staying on existing alignment, widening to the median, and not redoing curves. That's why the new section of I-95 will only be 65 MPH, and the median will be have 10 foot paved shoulders + barrier wall. Unless the current 70 MPH section has a design speed 75 MPH when widened, it likely will not change, under your
"...(or nearly any DOT) is not going to post a speed limit that is higher than the design speed. Period." statement. But, I could be wrong. Only time will tell.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 08:07:36 PM
If the original section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike can be posted at 70 mph for cars, trucks and buses...
This is what I always say about speed limits even just in the same state. Almost every rural freeway in PA could be 70 for most of its length, and straighter roads like most of the NJTP or the first ~45 miles of the PA Turnpike Northeast Extension could be 75 or perhaps even 80 if they have few exits. Much of I-95 in NC does look like it could be 75 mph after reconstruction to improve safety and capacity.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 09, 2019, 08:39:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 08:07:36 PM
That may benefit those northeastern N.C. counties, but it won't benefit Virginia, where there are already plenty of businesses and distribution centers along US-58 and I-64 and VA-168 and other highways, and more to come.
It will benefit Chesapeake along U.S. 17. U.S. 17 is a failing corridor right now. The developments along Grassfield Pkwy are dead, there's numerous of store fronts abandoned, Kroger had planned to move in, though has canceled the project indefinitely. There's a few active businesses in the area, like some fast-food, restaurants, a mattress store, and a couple others, though not too much. Cedar Rd is the most successful thing over there. Scenic Pkwy was supposed to be an industrial park, but failed, so they're building neighborhoods. That area has not seen good success really, and I-87 could boost is significantly, and Chesapeake may be willing to take the chance, as seen by their feasibility study proposal, potential additional in the next comp. plan, etc.
Northern Chesapeake is near the core of Norfolk and Portsmouth and is near Virginia Beach, and far from those N.C. rural counties. An US-17 at-grade expressway upgraded to a freeway will have no significant business benefit to northern Chesapeake; they will benefit from better connections to those other three cities; that is why the 2050 Master Transportation Plan of Chesapeake has the Pleasant Grove Parkway and the Southeastern Parkway planned but no interchanges for US-17. Also has widening of all of I-64 and I-664 in the city. Widening of all of US-460 Military Highway in the city.
The Pleasant Grove Parkway is a proposed new 4-lane highway, about 12 miles long, generally from US-460 in the Bowers Hill area, passing south of Deep Creek, crossing US-17 near Eaglet Parkway, connecting to VA-168 in the Hillcrest Parkway area.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 09:39:41 PM
that is why the 2050 Master Transportation Plan of Chesapeake has the Pleasant Grove Parkway and the Southeastern Parkway planned but no interchanges for US-17. Also has widening of all of I-64 and I-664 in the city. Widening of all of US-460 Military Highway in the city.
That Master Plan has some unfeasible proposals. While I do support widening I-664 and I-64, along with Military Hwy, they have some crazy proposals for the southern section of the city. Four-laning every rural roadway with 2,000 AADT, 8-lanes on VA-168 on the southern at-grade expressway portion, etc.
I think one of the biggest (yet most expensive) need is widening VA-168 to 8 lanes between I-64 and Exit 11. That road carries around 80,000 AADT, and has major congestion.
Actually, interestingly enough, the 1990 Master Transportation Plan called for Dominion Blvd being a freeway all the way to Route 17 with interchanges, where the existing at-grade portion of Dominion Blvd is today. The Route 17 relocation was not apart of the 1990 Master Transportation Plan, but instead a 4-laned Route 17 where the old road is today.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 09:39:41 PM
The Pleasant Grove Parkway is a proposed new 4-lane highway, about 12 miles long, generally from US-460 in the Bowers Hill area, passing south of Deep Creek, crossing US-17 near Eaglet Parkway, connecting to VA-168 in the Hillcrest Parkway area.
Yes, I'm aware of the Pleasant Grove Parkway, I've invested research into that project years back. The 1990 and 2005 Master Transportation Plans had it as a limited-access rural freeway within a 250 ft right of way. The new plan doesn't call for a freeway. It's a 45 MPH at-grade parkway, curb & gutter, sidewalk, etc. with signalized intersections. It would be an extension of Hillcrest Parkway essentially. It's would meet with Military Highway just west of the I-64 interchange.
Old design plans showed having a full interchange with I-64, pictured below, but that was when it was proposed as a freeway. I believe if it was built as a freeway, it would provide significant relief to VA-168 between Great Bridge and I-64, which has major congestion issues, along as being a Deep Creek Bypass, which that area is also a mess. The only issue however is funding, though even an at-grade would cost $100 million minimum, and now a lack of interest from the city as a full freeway concept. I don't see it ever getting built, simply because of the price tag. A freeway would carry better weight for funding beyond city level, IMHO.
Another issue, with both proposals, is how to cross the Dismal Swamp Canal. A high rise bridge would cost too much, and a draw bridge would have lifts.
(https://i.ibb.co/27w4Fph/Pleasant-Grove-Parkway-Chesapeake.png) (https://ibb.co/Y76sNVQ)
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 09, 2019, 09:25:59 PM
Much of I-95 in NC does look like it could be 75 mph after reconstruction to improve safety and capacity.
I agree, but with the design of the first section of widening between Fayetteville and I-40, it's unlikely it will be designed to carry higher speeds. The widening calls for a design speed of 70 MPH, and a posted speed of 65 MPH, as existing. The 75 MPH proposal which almost passed a few years back called for 75 MPH to be - reserved for rural, lightly traveled sections of limited-access freeway, and only where 70 MPH (I.E. design speed 75) currently exists. Therefore, any 65 MPH section would not be eligible, or require improvements to bring it up to 70 MPH (design speed 75) standard, allowing 75 MPH, and I-95 is not a lightly traveled, rural freeway / interstate. I guess people will continue to keep going 80 MPH either way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 09, 2019, 10:30:55 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 09, 2019, 09:25:59 PM
Much of I-95 in NC does look like it could be 75 mph after reconstruction to improve safety and capacity.
I agree, but with the design of the first section of widening between Fayetteville and I-40, it's unlikely it will be designed to carry higher speeds. The widening calls for a design speed of 70 MPH, and a posted speed of 65 MPH, as existing. The 75 MPH proposal which almost passed a few years back called for 75 MPH to be - reserved for rural, lightly traveled sections of limited-access freeway, and only where 70 MPH (I.E. design speed 75) currently exists. Therefore, any 65 MPH section would not be eligible, or require improvements to bring it up to 70 MPH (design speed 75) standard, allowing 75 MPH, and I-95 is not a lightly traveled, rural freeway / interstate. I guess people will continue to keep going 80 MPH either way.
Simple, just pass a law defining all freeway speed limits as 70 mph for a ten minute window centered on the passing of a 75 mph bill. :bigass:
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 09, 2019, 10:27:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 09:39:41 PM
that is why the 2050 Master Transportation Plan of Chesapeake has the Pleasant Grove Parkway and the Southeastern Parkway planned but no interchanges for US-17. Also has widening of all of I-64 and I-664 in the city. Widening of all of US-460 Military Highway in the city.
That Master Plan has some unfeasible proposals. While I do support widening I-664 and I-64, along with Military Hwy, they have some crazy proposals for the southern section of the city. Four-laning every rural roadway with 2,000 AADT, 8-lanes on VA-168 on the southern at-grade expressway portion, etc.
I think one of the biggest (yet most expensive) need is widening VA-168 to 8 lanes between I-64 and Exit 11. That road carries around 80,000 AADT, and has major congestion.
I did see that, plus 6-laning all the way to N.C. That is part of the mix that will necessitate a major upgrade to the interchange of I-64/I-464/US-17.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 09, 2019, 10:27:50 PM
Actually, interestingly enough, the 1990 Master Transportation Plan called for Dominion Blvd being a freeway all the way to Route 17 with interchanges, where the existing at-grade portion of Dominion Blvd is today. The Route 17 relocation was not apart of the 1990 Master Transportation Plan, but instead a 4-laned Route 17 where the old road is today.
It took many years of work with the ACOE and other resource agencies to work out how to expand US-17 south of Dominion Blvd., various alternatives were evaluated. The old highway was too close to the canal and had subbase drainage issues due to having so little elevation above ground level. Much better to relocate away from the canal.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 09, 2019, 10:27:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 09:39:41 PM
The Pleasant Grove Parkway is a proposed new 4-lane highway, about 12 miles long, generally from US-460 in the Bowers Hill area, passing south of Deep Creek, crossing US-17 near Eaglet Parkway, connecting to VA-168 in the Hillcrest Parkway area.
Yes, I'm aware of the Pleasant Grove Parkway, I've invested research into that project years back. The 1990 and 2005 Master Transportation Plans had it as a limited-access rural freeway within a 250 ft right of way. The new plan doesn't call for a freeway. It's a 45 MPH at-grade parkway, curb & gutter, sidewalk, etc. with signalized intersections. It would be an extension of Hillcrest Parkway essentially. It's would meet with Military Highway just west of the I-64 interchange.
Still an expensive new location highway. Would need an interchange with US-17 should that become a freeway, and while it could be argued about which highway to "charge" that to, it IMHO would be chargeable to a freeway upgrade of US-17 since an at-grade intersection would be workable otherwise.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 11:47:37 PM
I did see that, plus 6-laning all the way to N.C. That is part of the mix that will necessitate a major upgrade to the interchange of I-64/I-464/US-17.
It's arguable a 6-laning is less important, at least south of Exit 10. It's only 30,000 AADT at that point, and for the time being, the highway is adequate. Between Exit 10 and 11, a 6-laning can occur within the median. The eighth lane would come in at Exit 11, about 20,000 AADT enter / leave VA-168 at this point. For the Intracoastal Waterway crossing, the existing bridge can be retained & converted into 4 lanes one way, and a new parallel 4-lane bridge can be constructed on either side. North of there, a mix of median and outer widening with the 40 ft median. The Oak Grove Connector has a 60 foot median, and all widening can occur in the median for that segment.
For the VA-168 / I-64 / I-464 / US-17 interchange, a massive expansion is apart of the I-64 High Rise Bridge Corridor Widening Phase #2 programmed around 2030.
(https://i.ibb.co/f0Dsh33/64-464-168-17-interchange-phase-2.png) (https://ibb.co/ys4rwzz)
The official concept would obviously be modified, for one, it does not factor in the Dominion Blvd freeway upgrade. Another factor, the I-464 bridges over I-64 need to be replaced with interstate-standard 4 lane (3 thru, one acceleration lane) bridges in each direction.
A concept for 8 lanes of VA-168 approaching this interchange heading northbound, at the I-64 Westbound ramp, the right lane would exit, and the second to right lane would be straight or exit (straight / straight / straight-right / right). At the new I-64 EB / existing US 17 SB ramp, the right would be exit, and the middle would be straight or exit (straight / straight-right / right), onto a 2-lane flyover towards the High Rise Bridge. That leaves 2 lanes left heading towards I-464 north.
A concept for southbound, the loop from I-64 EB to VA-168 SB would result in 4 southbound lanes at the I-464 overpass. The lane coming from the loop would exit onto US 17 South, and the second to right lane would be straight onto VA-168 SB / exit on to US 17. (straight / straight / straight-right / right). The VA-168 SB overpass over the US-17 NB exit would be widened to 3 lanes, and the 4th lane would come in from I-64 WB to VA-168 SB.
So 2 bridge replacements, 1 widening, 3 new long bridges, and a lot of retaining wall, especially on I-64 towards Battlefield Blvd. There's a cost estimate posted for this project alone, which is about $400 million IIRC. It would be constructed & funded under the $1+ billion High Rise Bridge Phase #2 improvements in the 2030s.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 11:47:37 PM
It took many years of work with the ACOE and other resource agencies to work out how to expand US-17 south of Dominion Blvd., various alternatives were evaluated. The old highway was too close to the canal and had subbase drainage issues due to having so little elevation above ground level. Much better to relocate away from the canal.
Agreed. Interesting though, what about North Carolina's section along the canal?
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 11:47:37 PM
Still an expensive new location highway.
Likely $180 million, minimum, and that's $15 million per mile. A freeway, though not currently proposed for that corridor, would be about $420 million, $35 million per mile roughly. And that's in today's numbers. I don't see it ever being built IMO.
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 11:47:37 PM
Would need an interchange with US-17 should that become a freeway, and while it could be argued about which highway to "charge" that to, it IMHO would be chargeable to a freeway upgrade of US-17 since an at-grade intersection would be workable otherwise.
Simple answer - whichever comes last pays the bill. If US-17 is an interstate before the parkway is built, then the Parkway's construction would have to fund the interchange, because at that point, you can't construct an at-grade on an interstate-highway. If the Parkway is already built with an at-grade intersection, and US-17 is being converted into an interstate, it would have to fund an interchange with the Parkway to maintain access with a major roadway, a thoroughfare between the south and north.
^ Interesting comparing that map to the below map, which I found at a 2004 public meeting. The basic concept is still the same with flyover ramps both towards the High Rise Bridge and from SB 464 to "WB" 64. But very different in design, especially since the below map shows a direct connection from the 64 HOV lanes (then-proposed to be reversible based on the ramp design) to the Oak Grove Connector. My best guess is the below map dates to sometime/some study in the 1990s...the background satellite image does not show the Oak Grove Connector, which was completed in 2001.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7852/47047800651_29cfe7a392_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/47047800651)
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 10, 2019, 01:36:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 11:47:37 PM
It took many years of work with the ACOE and other resource agencies to work out how to expand US-17 south of Dominion Blvd., various alternatives were evaluated. The old highway was too close to the canal and had subbase drainage issues due to having so little elevation above ground level. Much better to relocate away from the canal.
Agreed. Interesting though, what about North Carolina's section along the canal?
Built 20 years earlier, less environmental regulations then. More issues with the development environment in Chesapeake.
"Various alignments were considered, but they all seemed to come down to this: people or wetlands? One alternative would affect only 4.5 hectares (11 acres) of wetlands but would mean displacing 33 families and taking parts of 80 other properties. Another alignment involved fewer families, but 22 hectares (55 acres) of wetlands would be affected."
"A solution was finally found: a shift in the alignment of the road 305 meters (1,000 feet) to the east and construction of parallel 300-meter (984-foot)-long bridges that ultimately displaced only one family and affected only 10 hectares (25 acres) of wetlands."
Route 17 - The Four Decade Project
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/05may/05.cfm
Quote from: froggie on February 10, 2019, 07:59:43 AM
^ Interesting comparing that map to the below map, which I found at a 2004 public meeting. The basic concept is still the same with flyover ramps both towards the High Rise Bridge and from SB 464 to "WB" 64. But very different in design, especially since the below map shows a direct connection from the 64 HOV lanes (then-proposed to be reversible based on the ramp design) to the Oak Grove Connector. My best guess is the below map dates to sometime/some study in the 1990s...the background satellite image does not show the Oak Grove Connector, which was completed in 2001.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7852/47047800651_29cfe7a392_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/47047800651)
Generally, the same designs are proposed, just with more compressed ramps. This proposal would not work today due to development on Great Bridge Blvd. Interesting HOV flyover, that would be very convenient if they built a two-way one with the current project, to bypass the daily congestion heading from 64 EB to 168 SB. It could be a compressed design, but still work. Give more incentive to pay the toll, knowing you could bypass that daily bottleneck.
Was the Oak Grove Connector intended to have a reversible HOV lane beyond the picture, or would it merge back in?
Lastly, are those design plans from a Dominion Blvd concept? If so, if you have more, could you post them? I've never seen those, because they're not online. That would be appreciated.
------------FYI:
Oak Grove Connector was completed in July 1999.
The Southern Extension to NC was completed in May 2001.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
So you are eyeballing it and guessing.
No, I used a mapping measuring tool. And one could easily eyeball it and be able to tell I-295 has sharper curves. You ask me to get the radii of each curve, I do, then you say I made them up. It's funny how this works. Also another thing, if the majority of traffic drives at 65 - 70 MPH already, that's about the 85th percentile. That's a major factor in determining the speed limit.
You failed to pass my "test" on superelevation and how it relates to design speed, even after you had the opportunity to research it online before responding, you even showed the opposite of what it is. You don't understand why sharper curves with high superelevation can handle higher speeds. I was thinking that you might have a background in highway engineering, so I wanted to test it... :-/
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
A letter from the mayor. A few comments from meeting participants. Given how long HPC 13 and I-44 has been discussed, it would have made it to the 2016 update of the 2050 Master Transportation Plan for the City of Chesapeake if they were seriously considering it.
It hasn't even been discussed or seriously considered in Chesapeake until about 2017. Before then, the talks were in North Carolina. Why would Chesapeake have requested a feasibility study? Clearly, there's interest.
NC US-17 is a major 4-lane highway and it comes to the edge of the City of Chesapeake. What is so difficult about posting VA US-17 interchanges to the 2050 Master Transportation Plan, if in fact they want to build them?
(Discussion in other posts that shows that the city is planning things well into the future, and also that they have a full plate of proposals; the Pleasant Grove Parkway, the Southeastern Parkway, the VA-168 widening, widening all of US-460 Military Highway in the City, widening all of I-64 and I-664 in the City, and others)
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
US-17 and Grassfield Parkway is a large and busy intersection, and you can't just close it and expect the traffic to use other very busy routes such as Cahoon Parkway and Cedar Road, without causing severe congestion, especially problematic for US-17 southerly traffic.
I'd like to see where you get that Grassfield is a large and busy intersection. It carries about 7,000 AADT. A majority is heading to destinations along Shillelagh Rd, etc. which would in fact use a Scenic Pkwy interchange. The traffic would be split between Cedar Rd & Scenic Pkwy interchanges, not all of the traffic isn't heading to the shopping center. There's plenty of other shopping areas that require some driving to get to off interstates either way, due to interchange location. Cahoon Parkway is not that busy of a roadway (10,000 AADT), and is currently being widened to 4 lanes. They also just built another 4-lane access road where new development is going to span to Cedar Road. And like I mentioned, a good amount of that traffic is heading towards Shillelagh Rd, etc. and would use a Scenic Pkwy interchange.
Let's wait and see what the city decides to do in the future.
Yes, let's wait and see if the city would want to sever the 4-lane Grassfield Parkway from US-17, before proposing to do that? There is a shopping complex off of Grassfield right near US-17 and today they have direct access to US-17, and the routing to Scenic/US-17 is indirect and on residential 2-lane roads, and the routing to Cedar/US-17 is also rather indirect.
At this point it would appear that a tight interchange would be indicated at US-17 and Grassfield Parkway, and at US-17 and Scenic Parkway, possibly a C-D connecting the two, that would be the logical default (starting point) to be evaluated in future EIS/location studies for an upgrade of the at-grade segment of Dominion Boulevard.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
Interstate standards of 1970, perhaps. Not today's Interstate standards. Single lane roadway northbound, left exit southbound, long low-speed curve on both mainline directions, frequent exits and entrances.
These roadways in the interchange are physically ramps, and as ramps they could meet Interstate standards, but not as mainline roadways, therefore they do not meet Interstate standards.
Whoa, is I-87 going beyond I-64 / I-464? The I-87 designation would end at the interchange of I-64/I-464/VA-168, and ramps (that meet interstate standards) through the interchange would connect to I-464 and I-64. I-87's designation isn't continuing through the interchange and beyond there.
This highway has been touted by N.C. as the "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor". Why should it simply devolve into ramps in Chesapeake just before it connects to the Interstate highway that connects into downtown Norfolk? That makes no sense from an Interstate highway corridor standpoint.
If this highway is to be what it is touted to be, then a fully capable design would include a seamless Interstate-caliber mainline between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464.
You yourself have even suggested replacing the I-464 designation with I-87.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
There's no interstate standard that declares left exits are prohibited. They're not preferred, but not prohibited. Could you cite where you found that?
I never made the claim that they are prohibited on an Interstate highway, as they are not; but there are safety issues, they are obsolete, and it is just plain crappy engineering on a 21st century Interstate highway general purpose roadway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
The "single lane roadway northbound" is the ramp connecting to I-64, it's not the mainline anymore. The overall interchange mix begins at the north end of the Great Bridge Blvd bridges.
The "single lane roadway northbound" I referred to is the ramp connecting US-17 to I-464.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
2-lane high-speed mainline roadways with at least 55 mph design between US-17 and I-464, and no left hand ramps. It may take elevated roadways.
Not required by interstate design standards. The interchange is adequate, and it's not "cheap design", it's pointless design. There's no active congestion that a right exit to VA-168 South would fix.
Highway engineers don't consider right-hand ramps to be "pointless", they consider them to be modern 21st century Interstate highway standards. Left-hand ramps are considered to be an obsolete and substandard engineering concept that violates driver expectancy. (Where is Mr. Lansford when you need him? :-D)
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
If the 3-way I-64/I-464 Interstate interchange is going to become a 4-way Interstate interchange then the interchange needs to be upgraded, a semi-directional ramp is needed from WB (Inner Loop) I-64 to SB US-17, and that will be difficult to build without a lot of bridgework..
There's almost no traffic that utilizes that movement. The previous interchange on I-64 WB is at US 17 Business, and traffic heading south would use that, and not back track to ride Dominion Blvd. The movement is provided presently by Great Bridge Blvd. A design exception would likely be granted due to the minor amount of traffic, and the amount of benefit to traffic a high-speed ramp would provide (which is none). Exceptions to the standards are made when it's not justified or reasonable. I'd like you to explain why it must be built, or no shield, and why exceptions for minor things such as this have never been granted and never will (which again, is false, and they have, even in the 21st century).
You seem to have misunderstood what I said.
WB (Inner Loop) I-64 to SB US-17 -- the Inner Loop of I-64 Hampton Roads Beltway is the direction heading toward Bowers Hill, the Outer Loop is that heading toward VA Beach.
The connection I am referring to is now handled by a tight one-lane loop ramp between the Inner Loop and US-17.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
It's anti I-87 rhetoric, that's strictly it. Making up your own interstate standards, proposing $200+ million projects strictly so it has right exits and 55 MPH direct ramps to be signed I-87 when the interchange already is adequate and meets your version of interstate-highway standards
It's hyper-advocacy VI-87 rhetoric, that's strictly it. Making up your own Interstate standards, proposing cheapened designs that uses ramp designs when mainline designs are indicated. Whacking urban interchanges that appear to be needed or at least strongly desirable.
If there is to be a "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor", then it needs to be done **RIGHT**, and that would include the US-17/I-64/I-464 junction upgrades that I detailed.
Doing Interstate highways *RIGHT* means ample and robust designs that will be adequate for 20 years or more, not designs that at best just barely squeak by with a minimum, tolerable standard of today's needs.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
We get you hate the highway,
Ah yes, playing the "hate card". No, I support most highway proposals, I just don't like they way that this scheme is being marketed by certain northeastern N.C. business interests, in how they are salivating over red-white-and-blue route trailblazers. Shadowy hyper-advocates posting in online forums. The more it gets discussed the more I am opposing it, and I will be engaging VDOT, CTB and HRTPO on this matter.
(People that have seen my very pro-highway posting history over the last 20 years on highways forums are probably chortling on the sidelines at seeing me tearing apart a proposed highway project!)
The route number itself that the Tar Heel State has chosen is screwed up. The original I-44 made sense as an even number for a mostly east-west highway. An odd number is for a north-south route like I-87 and it does not make sense and puts the capstone on the regurgitate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
For instance, we both know the I-64 / I-464 interchange meets current interstate standards, and that I-87 would end entering the interchange, and the existing ramps would connect it to I-64 and I-464. All of this is just to drive the cost way up and to make it look unfeasible, when in reality, building it with 4 interchanges, and under $150 million isn't "cheap" and "substandard", it's all that's realistically needed. It would conform to modern interstate highway standards (the real version), and would be fully standard.
A basic cloverleaf interchange of that type does not meet current Interstate standards for a very busy 4-way Interstate-to-Interstate interchange, and mere "ramps" are not an adequate design for the mainline of the N.C. touted "Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate corridor". Adequate for 1970, but not a 21st century Interstate design.
You are just trying to chop away needed and modern features of Interstate highway design, in your business advocacy of trying to find the fastest way to gain approval of your red-white-and-blue route trailblazers.
Ultimately it will be VDOT engineers as to who decides what meets Interstate highway standards on Dominion Blvd. and the connection to I-464. My initial discussions with them is that it is not / does not.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
You helped in construction on I-95 south of Richmond. Every home and cross road along that route lost direct access to US 301, and now has to use frontage roads to meet the interstate mainline. It's similar this way, just it's not a direct frontage road, but rather a mixture of alternate routes that serve the same purpose.
That was an upgrade of a nonlimited-access 4-lane highway to Interstate standards done *RIGHT*. And completed 40 years ago!
Referring to the 18 miles of I-95 between Jarratt and VA-35. VDOT bought out the entire east side of the highway and all the small properties and buildings. Built a new northbound Interstate roadway. Upgraded the northbound US-301 roadway to Interstate standards, and relocated it in 4 places (0.3 mi., 0.2 mi, 0.8 mi., 1.7 mi.) to reduce curves, replaced its mainline bridges, for use as southbound I-95. Devolved the southbound US-301 back its original 2-way US-301 usage (and not a mere "frontage road"), and relocated 5 short segments to allow space for interchanges and overpasses to be built. Built service roads in some places east of the highway to maintain access to farm properties. Built a VA-40 bypass of Stony Creek that has an interchange with I-95.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Call me a troll, as you will, but I'm just trying to be real here.
You failed the highway engineers' "superelevation test". :banghead:
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AMThis highway has been touted by N.C. as the "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor". Why should it simply devolve into ramps in Chesapeake just before it connects to the Interstate highway that connects into downtown Norfolk? That makes no sense from an Interstate highway corridor standpoint.
If this highway is to be what it is touted to be, then a fully capable design would include a seamless Interstate-caliber mainline between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464.
You yourself have even suggested replacing the I-464 designation with I-87.
If VA ever does build I-87 (and that's a big IF), then it would make sense to replace I-464 with I-87, for the reasons you just mentioned.
That said, I think NC is doing the right thing by focusing on other more important projects in eastern NC first, namely I-42 and the extension of I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40 near Faison.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 08, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 08, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
So you are eyeballing it and guessing.
No, I used a mapping measuring tool. And one could easily eyeball it and be able to tell I-295 has sharper curves. You ask me to get the radii of each curve, I do, then you say I made them up. It's funny how this works. Also another thing, if the majority of traffic drives at 65 - 70 MPH already, that's about the 85th percentile. That's a major factor in determining the speed limit.
You failed to pass my "test" on superelevation and how it relates to design speed, even after you had the opportunity to research it online before responding, you even showed the opposite of what it is. You don't understand why sharper curves with high superelevation can handle higher speeds. I was thinking that you might have a background in highway engineering, so I wanted to test it... :-/
Going back to the roadway itself...if 2500ft is the narrowest radius on the US 17 curves, that comes out to just under a 65mph design speed at 0% superelevation. Assuming NCDOT (or VDOT...sprjus wasn't specific on which section of US 17 he was estimating curve radius on) used 0.2% superelevation for water run-off, none of the curves with less than a ~3200ft radius would meet a 70 MPH design speed.
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2019, 07:44:14 AM
Going back to the roadway itself...if 2500ft is the narrowest radius on the US 17 curves, that comes out to just under a 65mph design speed at 0% superelevation. Assuming NCDOT (or VDOT...sprjus wasn't specific on which section of US 17 he was estimating curve radius on) used 0.2% superelevation for water run-off, none of the curves with less than a ~3200ft radius would meet a 70 MPH design speed.
I don't understand how NCDOT can claim a 75 mph design speed on VI-87, but less on a rebuilt/widened I-95, given how little horizontal and vertical curvature is on I-95.
I looked at some of the plates on their feasibility study, and was disappointed in the proposal for 2 of the nonlimited-access sections to be upgraded to Interstate standards. These have a long row of houses on each side and close to the highway. I detailed how it was done Jarratt to VA-35 on I-95. This is nothing like that, just acquiring limited access on the existing highway, squeezing in a new service road between the highway and the houses on one side, and building a service road behind the houses on the other side. I'm sure those residents will just love having an Interstate highway right in front of their houses... and it is hard to imagine how they are going to design that segment for 75 mph. Probably just a way to produce a feasibility study with low-balled total cost. Likely won't survive EIS/location studies/public involvement process with those segments being designed like that; much higher treatments needed.
Quote from: LM117 on February 11, 2019, 07:04:14 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AMThis highway has been touted by N.C. as the "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor". Why should it simply devolve into ramps in Chesapeake just before it connects to the Interstate highway that connects into downtown Norfolk? That makes no sense from an Interstate highway corridor standpoint.
If this highway is to be what it is touted to be, then a fully capable design would include a seamless Interstate-caliber mainline between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464.
You yourself have even suggested replacing the I-464 designation with I-87.
If VA ever does build I-87 (and that's a big IF), then it would make sense to replace I-464 with I-87, for the reasons you just mentioned.
And -not- before these upgrades are built!
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
NC US-17 is a major 4-lane highway and it comes to the edge of the City of Chesapeake. What is so difficult about posting VA US-17 interchanges to the 2050 Master Transportation Plan, if in fact they want to build them?
They requested VDOT & HRTPO to conduct a feasibility study back in December 2017. They're going to wait until the study is done, public input is done, and interchange locations are determined before they simply "post interchanges" on the map. You seem to ignore the fact that real discussions on the interstate came up recently, and they're going to wait until the study is completed and public input is taken before making official proposals or listing it in the Master Transportation Plan.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
(Discussion in other posts that shows that the city is planning things well into the future, and also that they have a full plate of proposals; the Pleasant Grove Parkway, the Southeastern Parkway, the VA-168 widening, widening all of US-460 Military Highway in the City, widening all of I-64 and I-664 in the City, and others)
Each Master Transportation Plan & Land Use Plans released in the past had public input. Once the feasibility study is completed for upgrading US 17 into I-87, public input will be heard, and the plan will be updated.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
This highway has been touted by N.C. as the "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor". Why should it simply devolve into ramps in Chesapeake just before it connects to the Interstate highway that connects into downtown Norfolk? That makes no sense from an Interstate highway corridor standpoint.
The interstate would end at I-64 / I-464, which would take traffic to Downtown Norfolk.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
You yourself have even suggested replacing the I-464 designation with I-87.
And if they wanted to, they could route it through the existing ramps. Southbound I-464 to US 17 has a two-lane high-speed connection. Northbound has a one-lane high-speed connection that can be re-striped to be two-lanes. There's nothing within existing Interstate highway standards that prohibits this.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
I never made the claim that they are prohibited on an Interstate highway, as they are not;
You're the one who kept saying I-87 couldn't be signed until they're removed, I.E. saying they're against interstate standards. If they meet interstate standards, then it can be signed. Simple.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
but there are safety issues, they are obsolete, and it is just plain crappy engineering on a 21st century Interstate highway general purpose roadway.
The southbound left exit is a 55 MPH to another major freeway, VA-168. It's not obsolete nor is it a safety issue. Traffic flows freely at 60+ MPH regularly through here, and there's full shoulders. North Carolina has plenty of 21st century built left exits on newer interstates, has proper "Left Exit" signage, and it's adequate. I-73 in Greensboro was built as a new freeway, and connects to the older I-73 via a single lane 25 MPH loop ramp. Now granted, continuity purposes, makes no sense, but it's allowed via interstate standards.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
The "single lane roadway northbound" I referred to is the ramp connecting US-17 to I-464.
Correct, and it's designed to carry two-lanes if needed. See my example above about I-73 going through a 25 MPH loop ramp. Not preferred, but can still be signed as such. I suppose you'll just call NCDOT "cheap" though.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
Highway engineers don't consider right-hand ramps to be "pointless", they consider them to be modern 21st century Interstate highway standards. Left-hand ramps are considered to be an obsolete and substandard engineering concept that violates driver expectancy. (Where is Mr. Lansford when you need him? :-D)
On new construction, they shouldn't be used. When an existing freeway is adequately operating as is, has a high-speed left exit onto another freeway, proper signage, it can maintain that. Funny, they still use left exits even in new construction interstates. But apparently it's now prohibited from this specific interchange.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
WB (Inner Loop) I-64 to SB US-17 -- the Inner Loop of I-64 Hampton Roads Beltway is the direction heading toward Bowers Hill, the Outer Loop is that heading toward VA Beach.
Actually, it's eastbound, that's what confused me. Westbound (heading towards VA Beach) is eventually heading towards Hampton, Williamsburg, Richmond, and so on, I.E. westbound. But technically it's actually heading (eastbound, inner loop) west.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
The connection I am referring to is now handled by a tight one-lane loop ramp between the Inner Loop and US-17.
The plan to upgrade the I-64 / I-464 interchange via the I-64 Phase 2 improvements retains this, but removes the weaving. I don't prefer it either, but that could end up being redone to feature a semi-direction to VA-168 / US 17 Southbound. Either way, it's fully within interstate highway standards, and would not prevent I-87 from being signposted.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
It's hyper-advocacy VI-87 rhetoric, that's strictly it. Making up your own Interstate standards, proposing cheapened designs that uses ramp designs when mainline designs are indicated. Whacking urban interchanges that appear to be needed or at least strongly desirable.
If there is to be a "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor", then it needs to be done **RIGHT**, and that would include the US-17/I-64/I-464 junction upgrades that I detailed.
Doing Interstate highways *RIGHT* means ample and robust designs that will be adequate for 20 years or more, not designs that at best just barely squeak by with a minimum, tolerable standard of today's needs.
The Interstate standards I've used ARE the official interstate standards, I'm not making them up. The high speed 55 MPH left exit to VA-168 Southbound is extremely within capacity and would continue being so. Re-locating it to the right doesn't benefit anything or fix traffic.
There's nothing inadequate about the existing interchange, but for some reason you think there's daily backups there due to poor design and right exits would fix these phantom issues.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
The more it gets discussed the more I am opposing it, and I will be engaging VDOT, CTB and HRTPO on this matter.
By all means, please do. Contacting someone who can actually do something about it, instead of constantly flooding this forum why the interstate is vanity, I think for over a year now.
Might want to add Chesapeake to the list, they're going to get onto this proposal likely over the next 5-10 years, especially when NCDOT begins constructing between Elizabeth City and Virginia line. They'll likely want to push for funding to extend the freeway to I-64, creating a continuous corridor from I-64 to Elizabeth City.
It would be disappointing if an I-87 just dead-ended at the state line, and all concepts, discussions, studies, collaborating with NCDOT, and creating a southerly interstate connection which is currently lacking from Hampton Roads which they want to get done eventually, all dropped by your comments, but I suppose that's what you're wishing for. Can't argue with that.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
The route number itself that the Tar Heel State has chosen is screwed up. The original I-44 made sense as an even number for a mostly east-west highway. An odd number is for a north-south route like I-87 and it does not make sense and puts the capstone on the regurgitate.
Something we can actually agree with. But that doesn't change the routing either way.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 01:10:23 AM
A basic cloverleaf interchange of that type does not meet current Interstate standards for a very busy 4-way Interstate-to-Interstate interchange, and mere "ramps" are not an adequate design for the mainline of the N.C. touted "Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate corridor". Adequate for 1970, but not a 21st century Interstate design.
You are just trying to chop away needed and modern features of Interstate highway design, in your business advocacy of trying to find the fastest way to gain approval of your red-white-and-blue route trailblazers.
Ultimately it will be VDOT engineers as to who decides what meets Interstate highway standards on Dominion Blvd. and the connection to I-464. My initial discussions with them is that it is not / does not.
Not going to repeat the same back and forth, see my comments above.
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2019, 07:44:14 AM
Going back to the roadway itself...if 2500ft is the narrowest radius on the US 17 curves, that comes out to just under a 65mph design speed at 0% superelevation. Assuming NCDOT (or VDOT...sprjus wasn't specific on which section of US 17 he was estimating curve radius on) used 0.2% superelevation for water run-off, none of the curves with less than a ~3200ft radius would meet a 70 MPH design speed.
Virginia's section. North Carolina's will be posted at 70 MPH from Raleigh to the Virginia border, and carry a 75 MPH design speed.
A speed study will ultimately determine what happens. If it's determined a 70 MPH posted speed is safe, then it will be posted. If it's determined it's not, it won't be. That will have to be determined at a later point.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 10:18:12 AM
I don't understand how NCDOT can claim a 75 mph design speed on VI-87, but less on a rebuilt/widened I-95, given how little horizontal and vertical curvature is on I-95.
The existing speed limit is 65 MPH, and they wish to keep it that way, and not increase it. The goal for I-87 is a 70 MPH speed limit, so they wish to design it as such.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 10:18:12 AM
I looked at some of the plates on their feasibility study, and was disappointed in the proposal for 2 of the nonlimited-access sections to be upgraded to Interstate standards. These have a long row of houses on each side and close to the highway. I detailed how it was done Jarratt to VA-35 on I-95. This is nothing like that, just acquiring limited access on the existing highway, squeezing in a new service road between the highway and the houses on one side, and building a service road behind the houses on the other side. I'm sure those residents will just love having an Interstate highway right in front of their houses... and it is hard to imagine how they are going to design that segment for 75 mph. Probably just a way to produce a feasibility study with low-balled total cost. Likely won't survive EIS/location studies/public involvement process with those segments being designed like that; much higher treatments needed.
A few of the non-limited-access upgrades show alternatives with new location as well. There's one section that only has an upgraded section proposed, and is non-limited-access, between Hertford and Edenton. The proposal shows using the existing southbound roadway as the mainline northbound lanes, constructing new mainline southbound lanes + service road in some area. The existing northbound roadway would be converted to a 2-way continuous frontage road. Same design as I-95. Even if they did "squeeze" a frontage road, it would likely acquire the property fully, just like on I-95, you're assuming it would remain. The alternatives with upgrades and new location proposed, it was usually cheaper for new location due to extensive impact, so I'm not considering that.
The study shows a lot of curvature being realigned to have a higher design speed, just like I-95, at least on the upgrade only alternatives. Again, I didn't really consider where new locations where proposed, because that's likely the alternative to be selected, because of cheaper costs, due to extensive impact for an upgrade. You seem to think all the curvature is remaining in location.
The official designs, not your made up ones, will likely go through the NEPA process, because it was done by AECOM, a major engineering firm and fully evaluated to modern 21st century interstate 75 MPH design standards as you say, over the course of almost 4 years, starting in 2015, before I-87 even got approved. Business advocates as you claim did not whip up the study you know. Low-balled cost-estimates wouldn't have been made either. It may rise, but that's due to inflation.
They've used these construction techniques and 70 MPH speed limits on interstates before... Just like VDOT, they too are a transportation department, manage an entire state, thousands of miles of highways, and conduct NEPA processes, design, and construct new freeways, urban and rural. They might abide to a different standard, or lower standard than VDOT, but nothing says it doesn't meet design speed or interstate standards.
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 10:29:51 AM
And -not- before these upgrades are built!
So the existing design breaks interstate standards (which it doesn't) therefore preventing it from being signed? If it meets interstate standards, even minimal, it can be signed. VDOT does a lot of additional work on the interstates, and way higher designs than required usually. It's nice, but it's not required, and can still be signed as existing. It would obviously reduce costs, but it's not "obsolete" or "inadequate", I've mentioned several times the existing interchange handles traffic flow well, has full shoulders, minimum 45 MPH speed ramps, at least south of I-64. The inadequate ramps at I-64 / I-464 would be fixed under the I-64 improvement, not an I-87 upgrade. I think you're just used to that approach of it.
If I-87 were to run up I-464, here is a concept that would make it continuous 4-lanes throughout, going northbound. The southbound lanes are already 2-lanes free flowing.
The I-464 bridge replacement would likely be constructed part of the I-464 / I-64 Interchange Reconstruction proposed under I-64 Phase #2.
This interchange modification to make I-87 2 lanes northbound would likely cost about $15 - 25 million. It simply adds about 2-5 feet of pavement on either side in some areas, though most pavement already exists, along with some re-striping. It also makes the I-64 WB (Outer Loop) towards VA Beach ramp 2-lanes off I-87 instead of the existing 1. The bridge replacement over I-464 + 1/2 mile of widening would likely cost $20 - 35 million, but would likely be done under the other project. In fact, this re-striping could be added to the budget of the other project as well, for capacity improvements.
If both the 2 lane re-striping and bridge replacement were done under one I-87 project, I'd estimate $35 - 60 million. Though, the I-464 bridge replacement would not be necessary, as the VA-168 Northbound lane could merge into I-87 NB and still use the existing bridge, though ideally, 3 lanes across would be preferred.
(https://i.ibb.co/d6G2sV0/I87Pic1.png) (https://ibb.co/6bgPcTR)
(https://i.ibb.co/F7Gfsxt/I87Pic2.png) (https://ibb.co/DK36GVn)
(https://i.ibb.co/wBSXDnP/I87Pic3.png) (https://ibb.co/vV3G2NT)
There was no response about the upgrades of the at-grade section of Dominion Blvd.
I will of course leave it up to EIS/Location studies to determine what exactly needs to be done, but for a 2040 or 2045 design year my proposal would seem to be warranted, at least as a preliminary design starting point, for an ample and robust freeway design for the design year that well serves the local and business area.
At this point it would appear that a tight interchange would be indicated at US-17 and Grassfield Parkway, and at US-17 and Scenic Parkway, possibly with C-D roadways connecting the two, or C-D roadways connecting Grassfield Parkway and Cedar Road. Rebuild the US-17 profile to pass over Grassfield Parkway, and over Scenic Parkway, use retaining walls (or MSE walls) to restrict the width of the roadway prism.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 11, 2019, 05:39:25 PM
They've used these construction techniques and 70 MPH speed limits on interstates before... Just like VDOT, they too are a transportation department, manage an entire state, thousands of miles of highways, and conduct NEPA processes, design, and construct new freeways, urban and rural. They might abide to a different standard, or lower standard than VDOT, but nothing says it doesn't meet design speed or interstate standards.
Left exits and entrances on Interstate highways in N.C. are -not- common as you asserted; they are rare.
Major Interstate splits and joins aren't generally considered to be a left-hand movement.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 11, 2019, 05:39:25 PM
Contacting someone who can actually do something about it, instead of constantly flooding this forum why the interstate is vanity, I think for over a year now.
More like November 2018 when I started digging more into it. Then you started making yourself into a piñata. I am far from the only critic of this project here, and other than your floods, I have had little in the way of opposition to my comments here.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 11, 2019, 05:39:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2019, 10:29:51 AM
And -not- before these upgrades are built!
So the existing design breaks interstate standards (which it doesn't) therefore preventing it from being signed? If it meets interstate standards, even minimal, it can be signed. VDOT does a lot of additional work on the interstates, and way higher designs than required usually. It's nice, but it's not required, and can still be signed as existing. It would obviously reduce costs, but it's not "obsolete" or "inadequate", I've mentioned several times the existing interchange handles traffic flow well, has full shoulders, minimum 45 MPH speed ramps, at least south of I-64. The inadequate ramps at I-64 / I-464 would be fixed under the I-64 improvement, not an I-87 upgrade. I think you're just used to that approach of it.
The highway engineering guiding design principle thruout the Interstate system program and with highway projects in general, is to not just design the highway for today's needs, but for a design year at least 20 years in the future. What you seem to think are "way higher designs than required usually", is just designing it for the design year.
You wouldn't believe how "overdesigned" most of VA I-81 was for its first 15 years or so, my opinion back then was that the rural sections should have been built with 2 lanes on a 4-lane right-of-way (and back in those days some were built that way), traffic volumes were that low!! In 1975 there was 5,000 to 8,000 AADT on a lot of the rural mileage. But the designers were wise enough to look 20+ years into the future.
So don't think about what might barely meet Interstate standards today, think about what is needed in 2040 or 2045. The interchange of I-64, I-464, US-17 and VA-168 will need a massive upgrade to meet the traffic demands of 2040. I will leave it up to the project engineers to determine exactly what needs to be done, but it is safe to say that what is there now will be profoundly inadequate in 2040, especially with an all-freeway US-17 feeding into it. Plus advisory signed 45 mph ramps are not an Interstate mainline.
It is good that you have some ideas (another post) about how expand the US-17/I-464 thru movement, but I think you are dreaming if you think that $15 to $60 million will address the needs of 2040 or 2045. The kind of upgrade this interchange will need for all of its legs will probably be in the $200 to $300 million range in today's dollars. Charge 1/3 or 1/4 of that to VI-87 should that be built, which again could be 2030 to 2040.
While you can debate whether the interchange meets Interstate standards today, it surely will not in 2040 without major upgrades and expansion.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2019, 01:01:17 AM
Major freeway splits and joins aren't generally considered to be a left-hand movement.
Fixed for you.
sprjus: would you be opposed to a split at Williamston, making this L-shaped route a combination of two logical corridors of Norfolk-Wilmington and Raleigh-OBX?
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2019, 01:01:17 AM
There was no response about the upgrades of the at-grade section of Dominion Blvd.
I will of course leave it up to EIS/Location studies to determine what exactly needs to be done, but for a 2040 or 2045 design year my proposal would seem to be warranted, at least as a preliminary design starting point, for an ample and robust freeway design for the design year that well serves the local and business area.
At this point it would appear that a tight interchange would be indicated at US-17 and Grassfield Parkway, and at US-17 and Scenic Parkway, possibly with C-D roadways connecting the two, or C-D roadways connecting Grassfield Parkway and Cedar Road. Rebuild the US-17 profile to pass over Grassfield Parkway, and over Scenic Parkway, use retaining walls (or MSE walls) to restrict the width of the roadway prism.
I didn't respond to it because I'm not trying to start another back and forth argument, but since you want a piece out of me... I don't see the need for an interchange there as other roadways would be handle the traffic adequately. But, if one was to be built, elevating an additional half mile of US-17 between Cedar Rd and just south of Grassfield Pkwy with retaining wall and tight urban ramps would be the answer. Scenic Pkwy, about 1 mile from here would have it's own interchange, as there's enough room for an auxiliary lane from the Grassfield Pkwy & Scenic Pkwy ramp terminals.
(https://i.ibb.co/s3RTYRr/Grassfield-Pkwy-Interchange.png) (https://ibb.co/j4fCXfF)
Probably about $20 - 30 million. It's not really a complex interchange design.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2019, 01:01:17 AM
Left exits and entrances on Interstate highways in N.C. are -not- common as you asserted; they are rare.
Major Interstate splits and joins aren't generally considered to be a left-hand movement.
Then how come the new I-73 north of Greensboro that was completed last year has a left entrance north of Greensboro, from NC 68?
The left exits / entrances in question here for the existing US 17 / I-64 interchange are major freeway splits, like local roadways.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2019, 01:01:17 AM
More like November 2018 when I started digging more into it. Then you started making yourself into a piñata. I am far from the only critic of this project here, and other than your floods, I have had little in the way of opposition to my comments here.
Every project has critics, every project has supporters. You seem to act like I'm the only supporter, and everybody opposes it. This discussion over the past few months has been mainly me and you back and forth, and a couple other people backing you, and a couple with mutual opinions. Some may not agree with the whole interstate routing concept, but not everybody is opposed to a US-17 freeway upgrade. At this point, that's what this is about.
And you've touted this whole thing being vanity and useless ever since early 2018. Recently, you've added your tag line "VI-87".
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2019, 01:01:17 AM
The highway engineering guiding design principle thruout the Interstate system program and with highway projects in general, is to not just design the highway for today's needs, but for a design year at least 20 years in the future. What you seem to think are "way higher designs than required usually", is just designing it for the design year.
The existing (not a new construction) interchange is adequate today, and your proposed design changes on the US 17 / I-464 movement (not the I-64 interchange, that is getting a major overhaul in the way of I-64 upgrades, which again, you seem to ignore) would not add any capacity. You want to relocate free-flowing 45 - 55 MPH freeway to freeway ramps to the right on retaining wall, replace overpasses to make way for them, yet that doesn't "address needs for 2040". Is the left free-flowing 45 - 55 MPH exit going to have a severe backup whereas a right exit at 55 MPH will move fine? Your logic makes no sense. If you're referring to the I-64 interchange, that's a completely separate project, as I've mentioned several times.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2019, 01:01:17 AM
You wouldn't believe how "overdesigned" most of VA I-81 was for its first 15 years or so, my opinion back then was that the rural sections should have been built with 2 lanes on a 4-lane right-of-way (and back in those days some were built that way), traffic volumes were that low!! In 1975 there was 5,000 to 8,000 AADT on a lot of the rural mileage. But the designers were wise enough to look 20+ years into the future.
Horrible example. New construction interstate, carrying traffic over vast distances. We're discussing an existing interchange where your proposed improvements would not add capacity, but only satisfy your hate for left, 45 - 55 MPH high-speed freeway to freeway connections that are multi-lane or designed for multi-lane. You believe 55 MPH to the right would have way higher capacity than a left exit. You act like traffic currently has to slow to 30 MPH to take the left exit, and it would hinder traffic on the mainline. The current interchange has traffic moving at full freeway speed and is a multi-lane split off.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2019, 01:01:17 AM
So don't think about what might barely meet Interstate standards today, think about what is needed in 2040 or 2045. The interchange of I-64, I-464, US-17 and VA-168 will need a massive upgrade to meet the traffic demands of 2040. I will leave it up to the project engineers to determine exactly what needs to be done, but it is safe to say that what is there now will be profoundly inadequate in 2040, especially with an all-freeway US-17 feeding into it. Plus advisory signed 45 mph ramps are not an Interstate mainline.
Again, what massive improvements are needed to a free-flowing interchange? More lanes? You act like this is a brand new interchange being built and is to be designed well into the future. You're simply adding a designation to an existing interchange & freeway.
Your 45 MPH claim goes against urban interstate standards which states a minimum design speed of 50 MPH is to be used in urban areas, I.E. posted speed 45 MPH.
Completely rebuilding and realigning a ramp which would rebuild overpasses, etc. to hold a slightly faster speed is a waste of money, and adds little or no capacity, when an existing ramp exists. If Dominion Blvd did not exist, and I-87 was building brand new freeway to tie into the interchange, then of course, by all means, a $200 million expansion to seamlessly tie in US-17. But it's already there, and your project satisfies your hope of a 55 MPH speed limit.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2019, 01:01:17 AM
It is good that you have some ideas (another post) about how expand the US-17/I-464 thru movement, but I think you are dreaming if you think that $15 to $60 million will address the needs of 2040 or 2045. The kind of upgrade this interchange will need for all of its legs will probably be in the $200 to $300 million range in today's dollars. Charge 1/3 or 1/4 of that to VI-87 should that be built, which again could be 2030 to 2040.
While you can debate whether the interchange meets Interstate standards today, it surely will not in 2040 without major upgrades and expansion.
Could you draw up a concept map like I've done in the past to show where new ramps would be needed, and how it will address 2040 capacity? I'm curious to know what your ideas are, because you keep saying these $200 million projects, yet you offer no justification to where they would be needed, how it will add capacity, and how the existing interchange fails to provide that capacity proposed to be added.
ScribbleMaps is a good tool, basic, free, and easy to use.
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2019, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2019, 01:01:17 AM
Major freeway splits and joins aren't generally considered to be a left-hand movement.
Fixed for you.
sprjus: would you be opposed to a split at Williamston, making this L-shaped route a combination of two logical corridors of Norfolk-Wilmington and Raleigh-OBX?
No, actually I'd support that. A U.S. 17 upgrade might seem unreasonable to some for a Norfolk - Raleigh routing, but it also gets 80 miles out of the way for a Wilmington routing. I'd like to see a freeway down the coast along U.S. 17, and was hoping the 2-lane portion between Williamston and Washington would be bypassed by freeway / limited-access highway, but instead it's a non-limited-access existing 4-lane widening.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 12, 2019, 05:00:18 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2019, 01:21:53 PM
sprjus: would you be opposed to a split at Williamston, making this L-shaped route a combination of two logical corridors of Norfolk-Wilmington and Raleigh-OBX?
No, actually I'd support that. A U.S. 17 upgrade might seem unreasonable to some for a Norfolk - Raleigh routing, but it also gets 80 miles out of the way for a Wilmington routing.
80 miles out of the way compared to what other route?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 12, 2019, 05:00:18 PM
I'd like to see a freeway down the coast along U.S. 17, and was hoping the 2-lane portion between Williamston and Washington would be bypassed by freeway / limited-access highway, but instead it's a non-limited-access existing 4-lane widening. I'm still questioning whether a U.S. 64 freeway to OBX is needed, due to traffic volumes, but then again they did recently construct almost 30 miles of freeway, and that included upgrading about 10 miles of existing 2-lane road not to 4-lanes, but to full freeway standards w/ frontage roads & interchanges.
So why the need to put the two together into an indirect Raleigh-Norfolk route? What's wrong with upgrading US 17 as a Wilmington-Norfolk route?
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2019, 07:35:04 PM
80 miles out of the way compared to what other route?
The I-87 project will upgrade 80 miles of US 17 to interstate standards, 80 miles less to upgrade later on. In fact, if Virginia builds their connection to I-64, it would be 97 miles.
The context I used "out of the way", I was meaning "completed".
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2019, 07:35:04 PM
So why the need to put the two together into an indirect Raleigh-Norfolk route? What's wrong with upgrading US 17 as a Wilmington-Norfolk route?
To connect eastern NC to I-95 and Raleigh. From Hampton Roads, using existing speed limits (subject to change in future), it takes 2 hours 12 minutes via US 58, and would take 2 hours 17 minutes via I-87 in the future. I've also crunched above different speed limit changes that could make this routing have a closer time, for instance, if raised to 70 MPH in Virginia after appropriate studies are conducted, and the routing is a full freeway, it would be 2 hours 14 minutes, a two minute difference. With the little amount of time difference, it's not an out of way routing for a majority of motorists. It would be out of the way if it was a difference of lets say, 10 minutes or more. It's not a safe bet to use speed limits though, as they could change in the future, but either way US 17 is getting 80 miles in NC upgraded, and likely 17 miles in VA. I'm not going to argue about this though, for the umpteenth time, sure it'll be 20 minutes slower, as critics claim.
Either way, at this point it's just a shield. Either way - 97 miles of US 17 get upgraded to interstate standards, and might extend farther south to Wilmington, which would tie into a Carolina Bays Parkway freeway extension connecting to all the way south of Myrtle Beach. But some might say a four-lane arterial highway adequately serves the corridor, so all bets are off. :spin:
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 12, 2019, 08:43:34 PM
From Hampton Roads, using existing speed limits (subject to change in future), it takes 2 hours 12 minutes via US 58, and would take 2 hours 17 minutes via I-87 in the future.
Still talking bullshit, I see.
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2019, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 12, 2019, 08:43:34 PM
From Hampton Roads, using existing speed limits (subject to change in future), it takes 2 hours 12 minutes via US 58, and would take 2 hours 17 minutes via I-87 in the future.
Still talking bullshit, I see.
Prove me wrong, and show your work. I used each segments speed limit (the exact distance of 35, 45, 55, and 60 zones on US 58), and accurate distances between Nash Community College (west of I-95) and Berkeley Bridge. Applied a consistent speed of 70 MPH on NC I-87, and 60 MPH on VA I-87.
I didn't make up numbers or fudge it.
If you'd like, I'll post my work. It displays distances for each speed segment, the speed limit applied, time in decimals, and time converted into minutes. The time's added up to the end, and an average speed formula (distance / time). I'd like to see your work.
^^^^^^^^^
Long story, reasonably short: NE NC interests & NCDOT simply got together in 2016 and decided to make an Interstate out of the then-25-year-old High Priority Corridor #13; that particular die had been cast when the eastern portion of US 64 past Tarboro, constructed post-ISTEA, was built to Interstate standards when the previously-constructed segments from Raleigh to Tarboro had not (substandard shoulders & lines of sight). It was only a matter of time; but with all the other I-corridors around the country having been given the congressional "green light" in the previous years, they decided the iron was hot enough to strike. They were right; after the designation bullshit (I-87 my ass!) subsided, they had their corridor, even if VA didn't step up on their final 17+ miles. "Piggybacking" (an appropriate term) on an existing HPC was the easiest way to get it through the approval process, so that is what occurred. Now -- it's clear, from NCDOT's "master plan", that the entirety of US 17 in the state is slated for future development to full freeway standards (although a few segments are being developed otherwise in the interim to satisfy short-term local demands) -- so I for one wouldn't be surprised to see the erstwhile "I-87" split into two down the line -- the N-S portion along US 17 and the E-W segment along US 64, with the junction at Williamston; what the designations would be at that time is simply a matter of conjecture at this point. But if NCDOT can possibly snag some federal funds for the current I-87 route, they're certain to do so without reservations -- although they have broader goals in mind for the long haul.
Quote from: sparker on February 12, 2019, 09:52:03 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Long story, reasonably short: NE NC interests & NCDOT simply got together in 2016 and decided to make an Interstate out of the then-25-year-old High Priority Corridor #13; that particular die had been cast when the eastern portion of US 64 past Tarboro, constructed post-ISTEA, was built to Interstate standards when the previously-constructed segments from Raleigh to Tarboro had not (substandard shoulders & lines of sight). It was only a matter of time; but with all the other I-corridors around the country having been given the congressional "green light" in the previous years, they decided the iron was hot enough to strike. They were right; after the designation bullshit (I-87 my ass!) subsided, they had their corridor, even if VA didn't step up on their final 17+ miles. "Piggybacking" (an appropriate term) on an existing HPC was the easiest way to get it through the approval process, so that is what occurred. Now -- it's clear, from NCDOT's "master plan", that the entirety of US 17 in the state is slated for future development to full freeway standards (although a few segments are being developed otherwise in the interim to satisfy short-term local demands) -- so I for one wouldn't be surprised to see the erstwhile "I-87" split into two down the line -- the N-S portion along US 17 and the E-W segment along US 64, with the junction at Williamston; what the designations would be at that time is simply a matter of conjecture at this point. But if NCDOT can possibly snag some federal funds for the current I-87 route, they're certain to do so without reservations -- although they have broader goals in mind for the long haul.
To sum it up - it's getting built, at least the 80 miles in NC. VA may extend it 17 miles to I-64 in the future, but it's going to get built in NC, any way you slice it.
Quote from: sparker on February 12, 2019, 09:52:03 PM
so I for one wouldn't be surprised to see the erstwhile "I-87" split into two down the line
A U.S. 17 freeway may continue south, though the I-87 designation will always continue to run from Virginia to Raleigh, as approved by FHWA and AASHTO in May 2016.
Quote from: sparker on February 12, 2019, 09:52:03 PM
But if NCDOT can possibly snag some federal funds for the current I-87 route, they're certain to do so without reservations -- although they have broader goals in mind for the long haul.
Because it doesn't follow US 58, it's not eligible for any federal funding and will not be allowed to be constructed, even though FHWA approved the I-87 designation to begin with, and is eligible for federal funding because it's part of the National Interstate Highway System. Now, they don't approve construction permits on Interstate Highway System projects that they authorized to begin with :pan:
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2019, 07:03:59 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 12:56:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:53:45 PM
Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.
How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?
They can withhold federal funding, refuse to sign EIS and ROD.
They can refuse funding, but they wouldn't not sign EIS and ROD simply because "it doesn't connect directly to Norfolk". If the state funds it, then they wouldn't refuse to sign because of that.
If the only perceived "justification" that FHWA can see is putative "economic development", then they can and may well refuse to sign.
Quote from: sprjus4Because it doesn't follow US 58, it's not eligible for any federal funding and will not be allowed to be constructed, even though FHWA approved the I-87 designation to begin with, and is eligible for federal funding because it's part of the National Interstate Highway System.
Correcting a few misconceptions here:
- US 58, like US 17, is eligible for certain categories of Federal highway funding. It is up to the respective state DOTs whether or not to use their allotted portion of Federal highway funding on those routes.
- FHWA did not approve the I-87 designation. AASHTO did. FHWA typically defers to AASHTO for route
numbering, but FHWA holds final say on when (and if) segments of roadway are
actually officially added to the Interstate system.
- There is no such thing as the "National Interstate Highway System", certainly not in the context you tried to use it here. You're probably thinking of the
National Highway System (or NHS), which is a funding category under FHWA. It automatically includes the Interstates, but roughly 75% of NHS mileage is non-Interstate. Both US 58 and US 17 are on the NHS.
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2019, 10:37:40 PM
- US 58, like US 17, is eligible for certain categories of Federal highway funding. It is up to the respective state DOTs whether or not to use their allotted portion of Federal highway funding on those routes.
- There is no such thing as the "National Interstate Highway System", certainly not in the context you tried to use it here. You're probably thinking of the National Highway System (or NHS), which is a funding category under FHWA. It automatically includes the Interstates, but roughly 75% of NHS mileage is non-Interstate. Both US 58 and US 17 are on the NHS.
The Interstate Highway System gets special funding over U.S. Routes. I'm aware of what NHS is, thank you. I don't see how you got I was going for NHS when I said "national
Interstate Highway System" and was referring to I-87, not US 17.
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2019, 10:37:40 PM
- FHWA did not approve the I-87 designation. AASHTO did. FHWA typically defers to AASHTO for route numbering, but FHWA holds final say on when (and if) segments of roadway are actually officially added to the Interstate system.
Incorrect. FHWA could've shot down AASHTO's decision, but they didn't. FHWA has the final say, whether the designation goes or not, and AASHTO makes the recommendations. AASHTO is not an official gov't body you know, FHWA is. And to your point, they did approve 13 miles to be added to the official Interstate Highway System, between I-40 and US 64 Business east of Knightdale back in February 2017, and decommissioned I-495 permanently in favor of this routing. Since September 2017, Official blue and red I-87 shields are posted along this stretch. Once US 64 is widened to 6 lanes to the US 264 split in Zebulon, it will be constructed to Interstate Highway standards and designed I-87.
If they didn't want the interstate, they could've shot down AASHTO's decision, and not approve I-87 designation along US 64 freeway east of Knightdale. The entire highway is officially designated as Future I-87 as well to the Virginia State Line. I highly doubt FHWA would disapprove additions to the system along US-17, just because of anti-interstate rhetoric saying these towns are not eligible to be on the interstate system, and because the route is slightly longer, is not permitted to be apart of the system, even though they approved it in May 2016. It's come to the point where it's not only a dislike of the highway, it's a full on push to get the interstate designation deleted, and to keep US-17 a four-lane arterial highway, even if NCDOT wishes to upgrade it, or at least that's what it seems like, by the comments saying FHWA should refuse any upgrade construction permits and designations. It's pretty sad honestly, IMO.
^^^^^^^^^
As I've averred previously, the entire premise for the numerical I-87 designation was spurious from the beginning -- basically NCDOT simply trying to avoid renumbering of one or more state highways -- a priority that was summarily shot down by AASHTO, which inexplicably retained the N-S rather than E-W corridor rationalization and ended up going through NCDOT's original "I-89" request and subbing I-87 (I still think an open bar at the Des Moines SCOURN meeting may well account for that lapse of logic -- but they sobered up enough to very appropriately designate I-42 later in the agenda!). The designation of I-87 is an administrative one but also congressionally approved via the Interstate codicil added to the HPC-13 language -- but like any such decision, can be reversed or changed by revising and/or adding language to the relevant code section. If the corridor does eventually split as I've projected, it's likely I-87 will either disappear and be replaced by a more grid-appropriate number (a somewhat more southern I-97 comes to mind!) or simply extend down to Wilmington or even Myrtle Beach, with the E-W portion along US 64 getting an even 2di from the available pool.
When and if that occurs, it's more likely -- although certainly not a "lock" -- that VA, if it hasn't done so to date, will accede (maybe grudgingly) to an Interstate upgrade of US 17 in Chesapeake; an Atlantic corridor makes a more compelling rationale than a backwards L-shaped corridor heading toward Raleigh -- something a bit more useful for VA/Hampton Roads travelers and commerce than an indirect alternate route toward I-95 and I-40.
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2019, 12:33:19 AM
^^^^^^^^^
As I've averred previously, the entire premise for the numerical I-87 designation was spurious from the beginning -- basically NCDOT simply trying to avoid renumbering of one or more state highways -- a priority that was summarily shot down by AASHTO, which inexplicably retained the N-S rather than E-W corridor rationalization and ended up going through NCDOT's original "I-89" request and subbing I-87 (I still think an open bar at the Des Moines SCOURN meeting may well account for that lapse of logic -- but they sobered up enough to very appropriately designate I-42 later in the agenda!). The designation of I-87 is an administrative one but also congressionally approved via the Interstate codicil added to the HPC-13 language -- but like any such decision, can be reversed or changed by revising and/or adding language to the relevant code section. If the corridor does eventually split as I've projected, it's likely I-87 will either disappear and be replaced by a more grid-appropriate number (a somewhat more southern I-97 comes to mind!) or simply extend down to Wilmington or even Myrtle Beach, with the E-W portion along US 64 getting an even 2di from the available pool.
I do agree it would be interesting to see a coastal interstate along US 17. Any number it goes, we know now that at least 80 miles of US 17 will be upgraded to 75 MPH interstate standards, which is a big step towards a full build out.
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2019, 12:33:19 AM
When and if that occurs, it's more likely -- although certainly not a "lock" -- that VA, if it hasn't done so to date, will accede (maybe grudgingly) to an Interstate upgrade of US 17 in Chesapeake; an Atlantic corridor makes a more compelling rationale than a backwards L-shaped corridor heading toward Raleigh -- something a bit more useful for VA/Hampton Roads travelers and commerce than an indirect alternate route toward I-95 and I-40.
The quickest way to hop from the coastal corridor to I-95 South would be a US 64 freeway, I.E. where I-87 is going now. I wouldn't necessarily call it "indirect" overcome by travel time as refuted above, at least for travelers, but while it might not benefit freight heading towards I-95, it would spur faster travel on US 17 where I-95 might barely overcome that now (I.E. heading inland to I-95 via US 58, then back out), and will certainly have significant freight traffic on the US 17 portion, as US 17 is already a big trucking route, and would grow especially if the interstate is built for the reasons I've described.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 12, 2019, 11:15:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2019, 10:37:40 PM
- US 58, like US 17, is eligible for certain categories of Federal highway funding. It is up to the respective state DOTs whether or not to use their allotted portion of Federal highway funding on those routes.
- There is no such thing as the "National Interstate Highway System", certainly not in the context you tried to use it here. You're probably thinking of the National Highway System (or NHS), which is a funding category under FHWA. It automatically includes the Interstates, but roughly 75% of NHS mileage is non-Interstate. Both US 58 and US 17 are on the NHS.
The Interstate Highway System gets special funding over U.S. Routes.
Not as much as it used to. This all changed with MAP-21, so you are about six years or so behind.
The only advantage Interstates have now is being able to use National Highway Performance Program funding at a 90% match instead of 80%. That said, states now receive just one blob of NHPP. Theoretically, they could not spend anything on the Interstates.
The days of separate apportionments for Interstate funding are over and have been for quite some time.
Was this the left entrance mentioned on NC I-73? I don't see anything else north of Greensboro.
The freeway becomes the nonlimited-access highway US-220 just above the top of this photo. This design looks temporary, and something that would be reconfigured to something like this if the freeway was extended northward, and I am showing the likely way that ramp would be built to enter the right side of the freeway.
http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220.jpg
Not a final design, just conceptual.
I'm seeing this Virginia I-87 in much the same light as Virginia's portion of Corridor H (US 48).
The primary benefit for I-87 will fall to North Carolina. The primary benefit for Corridor H is in West Virginia.
Let NC build it's section of I-87 (upgrade US 17). Later on, if traffic warrants, Virginia will upgrade its section of US 17 to interstate standards. Likewise, Virginia won't do anything to its 14 or so miles of US 48 until WV gets its part finished and if traffic warrants.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 13, 2019, 11:14:08 AM
I'm seeing this Virginia I-87 in much the same light as Virginia's portion of Corridor H (US 48).
The primary benefit for I-87 will fall to North Carolina. The primary benefit for Corridor H is in West Virginia.
Let NC build it's section of I-87 (upgrade US 17). Later on, if traffic warrants, Virginia will upgrade its section of US 17 to interstate standards. Likewise, Virginia won't do anything to its 14 or so miles of US 48 until WV gets its part finished and if traffic warrants.
The big difference here is that West Virginia interests aren't tirelessly pressuring Virginia to build it. No real pressure at all.
Another big difference is that ADHS Corridor H was authorized in 1965 as one of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) corridors. Been around for a -long- time.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 11:11:32 AM
Was this the left entrance mentioned on NC I-73? I don't see anything else north of Greensboro.
The freeway becomes the nonlimited-access highway US-220 just above the top of this photo. This design looks temporary, and something that would be reconfigured to something like this if the freeway was extended northward, and I am showing the likely way that ramp would be built to enter the right side of the freeway.
http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220.jpg
Not a final design, just conceptual.
I doubt very strongly that they'd extend I-73 out through all those houses rather than just upgrade 220 or have it curve away to the east on a new alignment. From the alignment of Price Farm Road, it seems as though whatever they originally were planning here (perhaps before I-73) would have had NC 68 as the through route and US 220 as an exit like the I-69 TOTSO south of Memphis (https://goo.gl/maps/3DoXYK1e2PN2). I do agree that keeping the left entrance is odd. It seems that they'd have plenty of room to realign the northbound lanes to stick to the southbound lanes and have NC 68 merge in on the right. Maybe they'll do that when they get around to extending I-73, idk.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 13, 2019, 11:42:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 11:11:32 AM
Was this the left entrance mentioned on NC I-73? I don't see anything else north of Greensboro.
The freeway becomes the nonlimited-access highway US-220 just above the top of this photo. This design looks temporary, and something that would be reconfigured to something like this if the freeway was extended northward, and I am showing the likely way that ramp would be built to enter the right side of the freeway.
http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220.jpg
Not a final design, just conceptual.
I doubt very strongly that they'd extend I-73 out through all those houses rather than just upgrade 220 or have it curve away to the east on a new alignment. From the alignment of Price Farm Road, it seems as though whatever they originally were planning here (perhaps before I-73) would have had NC 68 as the through route and US 220 as an exit like the I-69 TOTSO south of Memphis (https://goo.gl/maps/3DoXYK1e2PN2). I do agree that keeping the left entrance is odd. It seems that they'd have plenty of room to realign the northbound lanes to stick to the southbound lanes and have NC 68 merge in on the right. Maybe they'll do that when they get around to extending I-73, idk.
The current plan is to upgrade US 220 to interstate standards from that interchange up to the state line. No new alignment.
Quote from: Strider on February 13, 2019, 12:56:17 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 13, 2019, 11:42:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 11:11:32 AM
Was this the left entrance mentioned on NC I-73? I don't see anything else north of Greensboro.
The freeway becomes the nonlimited-access highway US-220 just above the top of this photo. This design looks temporary, and something that would be reconfigured to something like this if the freeway was extended northward, and I am showing the likely way that ramp would be built to enter the right side of the freeway. http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220.jpg Not a final design, just conceptual.
I doubt very strongly that they'd extend I-73 out through all those houses rather than just upgrade 220 or have it curve away to the east on a new alignment. From the alignment of Price Farm Road, it seems as though whatever they originally were planning here (perhaps before I-73) would have had NC 68 as the through route and US 220 as an exit like the I-69 TOTSO south of Memphis (https://goo.gl/maps/3DoXYK1e2PN2). I do agree that keeping the left entrance is odd. It seems that they'd have plenty of room to realign the northbound lanes to stick to the southbound lanes and have NC 68 merge in on the right. Maybe they'll do that when they get around to extending I-73, idk.
The current plan is to upgrade US 220 to interstate standards from that interchange up to the state line. No new alignment.
3 miles of nonlimited-access 4-lane highway to the north of that intersection, lots of driveways and houses. I very seriously doubt that they will use that alignment and not bypass it, as many more houses would be taken than what I postulated in my conceptual design, and most of the homes are in a mobile home park to where the impacted homes could be trucked to a new place.
We would need to see the design and construction plans for that project, it would likely show an ultimate design of how the freeway would extend northward, including ultimate ramp designs.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 04:23:02 PM
Quote from: Strider on February 13, 2019, 12:56:17 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 13, 2019, 11:42:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 11:11:32 AM
Was this the left entrance mentioned on NC I-73? I don't see anything else north of Greensboro.
The freeway becomes the nonlimited-access highway US-220 just above the top of this photo. This design looks temporary, and something that would be reconfigured to something like this if the freeway was extended northward, and I am showing the likely way that ramp would be built to enter the right side of the freeway. http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220.jpg Not a final design, just conceptual.
I doubt very strongly that they'd extend I-73 out through all those houses rather than just upgrade 220 or have it curve away to the east on a new alignment. From the alignment of Price Farm Road, it seems as though whatever they originally were planning here (perhaps before I-73) would have had NC 68 as the through route and US 220 as an exit like the I-69 TOTSO south of Memphis (https://goo.gl/maps/3DoXYK1e2PN2). I do agree that keeping the left entrance is odd. It seems that they'd have plenty of room to realign the northbound lanes to stick to the southbound lanes and have NC 68 merge in on the right. Maybe they'll do that when they get around to extending I-73, idk.
The current plan is to upgrade US 220 to interstate standards from that interchange up to the state line. No new alignment.
3 miles of nonlimited-access 4-lane highway to the north of that intersection, lots of driveways and houses. I very seriously doubt that they will use that alignment and not bypass it, as many more houses would be taken than what I postulated in my conceptual design, and most of the homes are in a mobile home park to where the impacted homes could be trucked to a new place.
We would need to see the design and construction plans for that project, it would likely show an ultimate design of how the freeway would extend northward, including ultimate ramp designs.
http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg1.html
The plan has always been to upgrade this segment to interstate standards, I don't believe a bypass was ever proposed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 05:04:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 04:23:02 PM
3 miles of nonlimited-access 4-lane highway to the north of that intersection, lots of driveways and houses. I very seriously doubt that they will use that alignment and not bypass it, as many more houses would be taken than what I postulated in my conceptual design, and most of the homes are in a mobile home park to where the impacted homes could be trucked to a new place.
We would need to see the design and construction plans for that project, it would likely show an ultimate design of how the freeway would extend northward, including ultimate ramp designs.
http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg1.html
The plan has always been to upgrade this segment to interstate standards, I don't believe a bypass was ever proposed.
"Currently there are no active projects listed through 2029 in NCDOT's Draft 2020-2029 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to upgrade this highway. "
I don't see anything there about EIS/location studies, so perhaps none have been done yet.
Nevertheless, here is a possible treatment for a right-hand ramp entrance should they follow the existing --
http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220-exist.jpg
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 05:18:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 05:04:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 04:23:02 PM
3 miles of nonlimited-access 4-lane highway to the north of that intersection, lots of driveways and houses. I very seriously doubt that they will use that alignment and not bypass it, as many more houses would be taken than what I postulated in my conceptual design, and most of the homes are in a mobile home park to where the impacted homes could be trucked to a new place.
We would need to see the design and construction plans for that project, it would likely show an ultimate design of how the freeway would extend northward, including ultimate ramp designs.
http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg1.html
The plan has always been to upgrade this segment to interstate standards, I don't believe a bypass was ever proposed.
"Currently there are no active projects listed through 2029 in NCDOT's Draft 2020-2029 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to upgrade this highway. "
I don't see anything there about EIS/location studies, so perhaps none have been done yet.
Nevertheless, here is a possible treatment for a right-hand ramp entrance should they follow the existing --
http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220-exist.jpg
Something along those lines would work. I have always found it weird it was designed that way, especially because it was new construction and the fact that, while I-73 isn't north of here yet, it's still a mainline 4-lane route. Frontage roads continue past this interchange, implying that it will likely be part of the future interstate, not new location. I've got a feeling they'll likely just leave it as is, but we'll just have to wait and see. NCDOT does not plan on constructing that portion until VDOT begins their portion, which would be the Martinsville Southern Connector. For quite sometime likely, I-73 will continue to end north of this interchange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fi7374nc%2Fi73seg2str318c.JPG&hash=88005d2feae986c6761fe8fd632f3199211def6f)
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 05:25:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 05:18:05 PM
"Currently there are no active projects listed through 2029 in NCDOT's Draft 2020-2029 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to upgrade this highway. "
I don't see anything there about EIS/location studies, so perhaps none have been done yet.
Nevertheless, here is a possible treatment for a right-hand ramp entrance should they follow the existing --
http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220-exist.jpg
Something along those lines would work. I have always found it weird it was designed that way, especially because it was new construction and the fact that, while I-73 isn't north of here yet, it's still a mainline 4-lane route. Frontage roads continue past this interchange, implying that it will likely be part of the future interstate, not new location. I've got a feeling they'll likely just leave it as is, but we'll just have to wait and see. NCDOT does not plan on constructing that portion until VDOT begins their portion, which would be the Martinsville Southern Connector. For quite sometime likely, I-73 will continue to end north of this interchange.
It is an Interstate and freeway temporary terminus, even if it may be some years before being extended and being indefinite at this time. As such those transitions would not be expected to meet mainline Interstate standards.
Just from seeing that temporary terminus, it appears to me like no exact design has been determined yet as to how it would be extended, could be 2 or 3 alternatives are possible.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 06:06:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 05:25:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 05:18:05 PM
"Currently there are no active projects listed through 2029 in NCDOT's Draft 2020-2029 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to upgrade this highway. "
I don't see anything there about EIS/location studies, so perhaps none have been done yet.
Nevertheless, here is a possible treatment for a right-hand ramp entrance should they follow the existing --
http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220-exist.jpg
Something along those lines would work. I have always found it weird it was designed that way, especially because it was new construction and the fact that, while I-73 isn't north of here yet, it's still a mainline 4-lane route. Frontage roads continue past this interchange, implying that it will likely be part of the future interstate, not new location. I've got a feeling they'll likely just leave it as is, but we'll just have to wait and see. NCDOT does not plan on constructing that portion until VDOT begins their portion, which would be the Martinsville Southern Connector. For quite sometime likely, I-73 will continue to end north of this interchange.
It is an Interstate and freeway temporary terminus, even if it may be some years before being extended and being indefinite at this time. As such those transitions would not be expected to meet mainline Interstate standards.
I-73 goes through a 25 MPH loop ramp, and has three left exits, all non continuous along its mainline through Greensboro, and all of these examples were constructed in the past 10 years as new location, with I-73 in mind during design & construction, and was designated upon completion.
Red indicates I-73 routing.
(https://i.ibb.co/0qw87jd/I73-Thru-Movements.png) (https://ibb.co/9nMzD9C)
I-40 also has a left exit in the picture above, granted, the left movement onto the Greensboro Bypass was a re-routed I-40 for a short period of time, and designed that way, but it was re-routed back on the old routing. But no interchange modification was warranted, same with I-73's construction, to justify a right exit. Signage is pictured below where the left exit is signed properly. "To Bryan Blvd / PTI Airport" signage will be replaced by I-73 signage in the near future. The interchange is quite adequate, and will continue to be, and no right exit would've made anything better.
The 25 MPH loop ramp IMHO needs to be replaced by a two-lane flyover, as that is a mainline movement, not a interstate to interstate movement.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fi7374nc%2Fi73seg5str1018b.JPG&hash=243f31b1b0e63063678c91124a462c5f0a2a20c0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fi7374nc%2Fi73seg5str119b.JPG&hash=40ca18c224262dcc69d1120b18e71888dc7eb4b6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fi7374nc%2Fi73seg5str219b.JPG&hash=89a09c9bed26651fe421e62150418599794570f0)
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 06:43:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 06:06:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 05:25:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 05:18:05 PM
"Currently there are no active projects listed through 2029 in NCDOT's Draft 2020-2029 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to upgrade this highway. "
I don't see anything there about EIS/location studies, so perhaps none have been done yet.
Nevertheless, here is a possible treatment for a right-hand ramp entrance should they follow the existing --
http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220-exist.jpg
Something along those lines would work. I have always found it weird it was designed that way, especially because it was new construction and the fact that, while I-73 isn't north of here yet, it's still a mainline 4-lane route. Frontage roads continue past this interchange, implying that it will likely be part of the future interstate, not new location. I've got a feeling they'll likely just leave it as is, but we'll just have to wait and see. NCDOT does not plan on constructing that portion until VDOT begins their portion, which would be the Martinsville Southern Connector. For quite sometime likely, I-73 will continue to end north of this interchange.
It is an Interstate and freeway temporary terminus, even if it may be some years before being extended and being indefinite at this time. As such those transitions would not be expected to meet mainline Interstate standards.
I-73 goes through a 25 MPH loop ramp, and has three left exits, all non continuous along its mainline through Greensboro, and all of these examples were constructed in the past 10 years as new location, with I-73 in mind during design & construction, and was designated upon completion.
Red indicates I-73 routing.
(https://i.ibb.co/0qw87jd/I73-Thru-Movements.png) (https://ibb.co/9nMzD9C)
I suspect that the Urban Loop was designed under the assumption that I-73 would follow US 220 up to I-40, then I-40 west to NC 68 without running on the Urban Loop or Bryan Boulevard at all. I think this was the actual plan at one point. I-73 would still exit itself at two points with this setup, but only because both points have a more major through route: I-40.
The current I-40/73 interchange in your picture also was designed for I-40 to go around the loop like I-85 does, so even with the rerouted I-73, it was still the secondary route at that split until I-40 was rerouted back through Greensboro.
Of course, it would be hard to run a new interstate along various mostly existing (or under or just about to go to construction) freeways while reconfiguring every TOTSO interchange to have I-73 be the physical mainline.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 13, 2019, 06:50:13 PM
I suspect that the Urban Loop was designed under the assumption that I-73 would follow US 220 up to I-40, then I-40 west to NC 68 without running on the Urban Loop or Bryan Boulevard at all. I think this was the actual plan at one point. I-73 would still exit itself at two points with this setup, but only because both points have a more major through route: I-40.
The current I-40/73 interchange in your picture also was designed for I-40 to go around the loop like I-85 does, so even with the rerouted I-73, it was still the secondary route at that split until I-40 was rerouted back through Greensboro.
It was always designated as I-73 / I-40 since that leg opened in March 2008. I know I-40 was re-routed, but my point is, no massive expansion projects were required to route an interstate designation through a multi-lane exit, and have a left exit in place, like Scott had implied would be necessary for I-64 / I-464.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 13, 2019, 06:50:13 PM
Of course, it would be hard to run a new interstate along various mostly existing (or under or just about to go to construction) freeways while reconfiguring every TOTSO interchange to have I-73 be the physical mainline.
I agree, I'm not saying it's wrong. (though that I-73 North movement at I-85 seriously needs some sort of two-lane flyover, a 25 MPH loop is pushing it) My point is reconfiguring the I-464 / I-64 interchange just to have right exits as opposed to left exits, and to waste hundreds of millions for the I-87 designation doing so is a waste of funds when the existing interchange is adequate, and will continue to be.
Still waiting on those concepts for the badly needed hundred million dollar interchange improvements.... (directed at Scott)
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2019, 07:44:14 AM
Going back to the roadway itself...if 2500ft is the narrowest radius on the US 17 curves, that comes out to just under a 65mph design speed at 0% superelevation. Assuming NCDOT (or VDOT...sprjus wasn't specific on which section of US 17 he was estimating curve radius on) used 0.2% superelevation for water run-off, none of the curves with less than a ~3200ft radius would meet a 70 MPH design speed.
"HIS DAY OFF, and Scott Kozel is devoting it to something he loves: He's behind the wheel of his big Buick, steering it around a curve on a just-opened highway outside of Richmond, admiring the concrete and steel all around. The road's surface, unstained ash-gray, shimmers under the midday sun. Overpasses are unblemished by time and vandals. The median is crisply mowed, the shoulders free of litter and weeds. It looks less a highway than a computer simulation. What Kozel fastens on, however, are things that might easily escape attention. The way the highway banks ever so slightly as it sweeps left. Its arc as it does so, no doubt true to the state's prescribed minimum radius of 1,821 feet for a flat-terrain freeway designed for travel at 70 mph. Interchanges overbuilt in anticipation of ratcheting traffic loads. Collector-distributor lanes straddling the main line, siphoning away congestion at especially busy crossroads. "A very ample design," Kozel muses. He points to a diamond-shaped interchange. "Built with enough room to add a cloverleaf, should that be warranted in the future." He nods, cataloging the details. In a short while, he'll steer his LeSabre home, post the data he's gathered on his Web site — which specializes in the arcana of highway history and design in Virginia, the D.C. area, Maryland and West Virginia — and share it with the world."This is literally posted on his website. http://www.roadstothefuture.com/main.html
Guessing it doesn't meet some specific standard then. Looking at the roadway closer now, there actually is superelevation along U.S. 17. I underestimated that in my original statement, because it certainly does exist. Look on GSV.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 06:43:10 PM
I-73 goes through a 25 MPH loop ramp, and has three left exits, all non continuous along its mainline through Greensboro, and all of these examples were constructed in the past 10 years as new location, with I-73 in mind during design & construction, and was designated upon completion.
Those aren't left exits, they are mainline splits, and are a consequence of overlapping two Interstate highways on the same freeway and then having them split. The southern bypass was designed to take I-40, and the mainline roadways ran thru that interchange (western loop and new I-40 / westerly I-40).
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 06:43:10 PM
My point is reconfiguring the I-464 / I-64 interchange just to have right exits as opposed to left exits, and to waste hundreds of millions for the I-87 designation doing so is a waste of funds when the existing interchange is adequate, and will continue to be.
VA-168 and US-17 are not Interstate highways, and you are still laboring under the misconception that an Interstate highway project is designed for -today- and not for at least 20 years in the future (2040 or beyond) with much higher traffic volumes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 06:43:10 PM
What Kozel fastens on, however, are things that might easily escape attention. The way the highway banks ever so slightly as it sweeps left. Its arc as it does so, no doubt true to the state's prescribed minimum radius of 1,821 feet for a flat-terrain freeway designed for travel at 70 mph.
I didn't write that, Earl Swift wrote that in the Virginian-Pilot, the intro paragraph of his article which I copied there after the hyperlinked article was deleted from the newspaper website several years later.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
Those aren't left exits, they are mainline splits, and are a consequence of overlapping two Interstate highways on the same freeway and then having them split. The southern bypass was designed to take I-40, and the mainline roadways ran thru that interchange (western loop and new I-40 / westerly I-40).
Correct. When I-40 was routed along the original alignment, why didn't they reconstruct the interchange to provide a right exit, as you say is necessary along US-17 / I-464 interchange?
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
VA-168 and US-17 are not Interstate highways, and you are still laboring under the misconception that an Interstate highway project is designed for -today- and not for at least 20 years in the future (2040 or beyond) with much higher traffic volumes.
Both VA-168 and US 17 are 55 MPH four-lane freeways that have high speed 55 MPH connections through the interchange, it has the highest level of design. The most you can do is add more lanes, which would be apart of a widening project for either highway. Placing the blue and red shield on an existing interstate-standard freeway would not involve completely tearing up the high-speed, high capacity interchange, rebuilding it somehow (still waiting on your concept maps), blowing hundreds of millions of dollars, and ending up with the same exact design, just with right exits and... that's about it.
Please, I'm open to hear what concepts you recommend, and would love to see a concept map.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
I didn't write that, Earl Swift wrote that in the Virginian-Pilot, the intro paragraph of his article which I copied there after the hyperlinked article was deleted from the newspaper website several years later.
So he's lying?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 08:45:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
Those aren't left exits, they are mainline splits, and are a consequence of overlapping two Interstate highways on the same freeway and then having them split. The southern bypass was designed to take I-40, and the mainline roadways ran thru that interchange (western loop and new I-40 / westerly I-40).
Correct. When I-40 was routed along the original alignment, why didn't they reconstruct the interchange to provide a right exit,
Those aren't left exits, they are mainline splits, and are a consequence of overlapping two Interstate highways on the same freeway and then having them split.Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 08:45:33 PM
as you say is necessary along US-17 / I-464 interchange?
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
VA-168 and US-17 are not Interstate highways, and you are still laboring under the misconception that an Interstate highway project is designed for -today- and not for at least 20 years in the future (2040 or beyond) with much higher traffic volumes.
Both VA-168 and US 17 are 55 MPH four-lane freeways that have high speed 55 MPH connections through the interchange, it has the highest level of design.
No. 45 mph advisory signing. Those roads were not built under an Interstate design. Principal arterial highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 08:45:33 PM
The most you can do is add more lanes, which would be apart of a widening project for either highway. Placing the blue and red shield on an existing interstate-standard freeway would not involve completely tearing up the high-speed, high capacity interchange, rebuilding it somehow (still waiting on your concept maps), blowing hundreds of millions of dollars, and ending up with the same exact design, just with right exits and... that's about it.
Please, I'm open to hear what concepts you recommend, and would love to see a concept map.
The relocated mainline (didn't even attempt the relocated ramps) of I-464 thru US-17 would have untenable impacts, so I would say the idea of an Interstate US-17 should be dropped --
http://capital-beltway.com/VI-87-464-17.jpg
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 08:45:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
I didn't write that, Earl Swift wrote that in the Virginian-Pilot, the intro paragraph of his article which I copied there after the hyperlinked article was deleted from the newspaper website several years later.
So he's lying?
So a reporter can't misremember something without lying?
Look, your conduct as an anonymous poster who is obviously deeply invested in this highway, is very unseemly at best, going into stuff that is on my website and then playing logical games to support your hyper-advocacy of this highway that wouldn't even be built until about a 2026 to 2040 or 2045 timeframe.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 09:17:59 PM
Those aren't left exits, they are mainline splits, and are a consequence of overlapping two Interstate highways on the same freeway and then having them split.
I believe the sign reads "
Left Exit 212"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fi7374nc%2Fi73seg5str1018b.JPG&hash=243f31b1b0e63063678c91124a462c5f0a2a20c0)
The fact you deny this is a left exit is astonishing. To stay on I-40, you keep right, and the left splits you to other interstates.
Trying to put this at a higher level than the US 17 / I-464 interchange is pretty funny.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
No. 45 mph advisory signing.
The relocated mainline (didn't even attempt the relocated ramps) of I-464 thru US-17 would have untenable impacts, so I would say the idea of an Interstate US-17 should be dropped --
http://capital-beltway.com/VI-87-464-17.jpg
Ah yes, relocate the entire highway, over $300 million, at least 40 relocations, impacts to a cemetery, just to satisfy a 60 MPH design speed. I highly doubt your design would be considered as an "alternative" in an EIS.
Please clarify this - at what point would a realigned highway at 60 MPH do to help traffic flow that the existing interchange lacks? A slight increase to 60 MPH?
Most of the interchange satisfies a 55 MPH design speed, a few movements are 45 MPH. The map below depicts what movements are posted at 55 MPH (green), and 45 MPH (red). The southbound movement wouldn't even need to be modified. The northbound movement could have an advisory speed posted. There's nothing preventing this, urban design speed is 50 MPH as per interstate standards, 45 MPH posted. A slight realignment on general existing location could be done if truly necessary.
Either way, for all we could know, I-87 could end at I-64. That was the implied original plan, the concept to replace I-464 was touted here a few times, but has never made real discussion. Connecting to I-64 would satisfy just as much as overlapping I-464 would. But I suppose requiring an 60 MPH high-speed connection is another way you can add hundreds of millions of dollars to your estimate. How about we wait until this thing has a real cost estimate? Oh, but considering NC's, I'd suppose you'd say if VA had a cost estimate of under $200 million, you'd say it's vanity too and doesn't satisfy your 60 MPH complete realignment to I-464, to replace existing 45 - 55 MPH high speed multi-lane ramps that already serve the movement quite adequately, and will continue to for many years to come?
(https://i.ibb.co/NC3PXW7/US17-I464-Interchange-Speed.png)
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
Those roads were not built under an Interstate design. Principal arterial highway.
US-17 has a 46 foot median, 55 MPH speed limit, 10 foot right shoulders, 4 foot left shoulders, 12 foot travel lanes, full control of access.
VA-168 has a 60 foot median, 55 MPH speed limit, 10 foot right shoulders, 4 foot left shoulders, 12 foot travel lanes, full control of access.
Trying to clarify where it's -not- built to interstate standards.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
So a reporter can't misremember something without lying?
Seems pretty precise for a remembrance, a rounded number would've worked.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
Look, your conduct as an anonymous poster who is obviously deeply invested in this highway, is very unseemly at best, going into stuff that is on my website and then playing logical games to support your hyper-advocacy of this highway that wouldn't even be built until about a 2026 to 2040 or 2045 timeframe.
Ah yes, "deeply invested", "playing logical games", "hyper-advocacy".
I'm a resident of Hampton Roads who has an interest in this type of stuff, and am supporting an interstate alignment to the south. You call me a North Carolina business advocate because I support such concept. Does everybody that supports the concept a business advocate?
Just because I've not been with your "group" for the past 15+ years, I'm now an outsider who cannot comment on a public forum with hundreds of members to share my thoughts, and factual knowledge.
Pretty sad.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 10:16:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 09:17:59 PM
Those aren't left exits, they are mainline splits, and are a consequence of overlapping two Interstate highways on the same freeway and then having them split.
I believe the sign reads "Left Exit 212"
The fact you deny this is a left exit is astonishing. To stay on I-40, you keep right, and the left splits you to other interstates.
It is not astonishing that you lack highway engineering acumen. A 5-lane Interstate freeway roadway splits into two 3-lane Interstate freeway roadways. That is a mainline split, and there is no lefthand offramp there.
The route numbering was shifted from the original design. The route numbering could be shifted again, back to I-40 on the south leg of the loop.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 10:16:48 PM
Most of the interchange satisfies a 55 MPH design speed, a few movements are 45 MPH. The map below depicts what movements are posted at 55 MPH (green), and 45 MPH (red). The southbound movement wouldn't even need to be modified. The northbound movement could have an advisory speed posted. There's nothing preventing this, urban design speed is 50 MPH as per interstate standards, 45 MPH posted. A slight realignment on general existing location could be done if truly necessary.
It is questionable as to whether that southbound US-17 really should be as high as 55 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 10:16:48 PM
Either way, for all we could know, I-87 could end at I-64.
Or could stay in N.C., and maybe not even there. The world is not going to stop rotating if it isn't built.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 10:16:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
Those roads were not built under an Interstate design. Principal arterial highway.
US-17 has a 46 foot median, 55 MPH speed limit, 10 foot right shoulders, 4 foot left shoulders, 12 foot travel lanes, full control of access.
VA-168 has a 60 foot median, 55 MPH speed limit, 10 foot right shoulders, 4 foot left shoulders, 12 foot travel lanes, full control of access.
Trying to clarify where it's -not- built to interstate standards.
Very narrow clear zones on nearly all of VA-168. In guardrailed sections an 8-foot paved right shoulder.
The aforementioned sharp curves on US-17 and the fact that only 3 miles of Dominion Blvd. is freeway. In guardrailed sections an 8-foot paved right shoulder.
The best way to solve this issue IMHO is to leave Dominion Blvd. out of any Interstate highway proposal.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 10:16:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
So a reporter can't misremember something without lying?
Seems pretty precise for a remembrance, a rounded number would've worked.
Hard to say, but I normally don't specify a curve's radius, I express it in degrees and minutes, as in say 2 degrees and 30 minutes.
I spent several hours with him, he is a pretty sharp guy, and he wrote the "Big Roads" book several years later. That is a major part of why he was interested in my works.
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Roads-Visionaries-Trailblazers-Superhighways/dp/0547907249
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 10:16:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
Look, your conduct as an anonymous poster who is obviously deeply invested in this highway, is very unseemly at best, going into stuff that is on my website and then playing logical games to support your hyper-advocacy of this highway that wouldn't even be built until about a 2026 to 2040 or 2045 timeframe.
Ah yes, "deeply invested", "playing logical games", "hyper-advocacy".
I'm a resident of Hampton Roads who has an interest in this type of stuff, and am supporting an interstate alignment to the south. You call me a North Carolina business advocate because I support such concept. Does everybody that supports the concept a business advocate?
Just because I've not been with your "group" for the past 15+ years, I'm now an outsider who cannot comment on a public forum with hundreds of members to share my thoughts, and factual knowledge.
Pretty sad.
You can certainly comment as that is a civil right in the U.S., but I can also comment right back.
I have a problem with anonymous posters when they start getting up in my face and overstepping certain personal boundaries.
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
A 5-lane Interstate freeway roadway splits into two 3-lane Interstate freeway roadways. That is a mainline split, and there is no lefthand offramp there.
So when the 3-lane I-464 Southbound splits into two 2-lane freeway roadways, that's a left exit, but this isn't?
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
It is questionable as to whether that southbound US-17 really should be as high as 55 mph.
Actually, not really, it's easily driveable at 60 MPH. You're assuming.
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
Or could stay in N.C., and maybe not even there. The world is not going to stop rotating if it isn't built.
And the world is not going to stop rotating if US 17 is upgraded to I-87 and brought up to I-64.
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
In guardrailed sections an 8-foot paved right shoulder.
VA-168 has a 10 foot paved shoulder, at least on the 1999 Oak Grove Connector. US-17 also has a 10 foot shoulder, not 8.
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
The aforementioned sharp curves on US-17 and the fact that only 3 miles of Dominion Blvd. is freeway. In guardrailed sections an 8-foot paved right shoulder.
Your sharp shoulders meet at least 62 MPH design according to you, and with superelevation in account, this could be studied for higher speed. Just like you can claim US 58 will have 70 MPH posted on substandard bypasses, it can easily happen here too.
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
The best way to solve this issue IMHO is to leave Dominion Blvd. out of any Interstate highway proposal.
Ah, yes. More of this. The entirety of US-17 is a limited-access 4 lane highway, a design speed of 60 MPH (could be studied for higher), has a median of at least 42 foot (with one 2 mile exception), and is easily driveable at 65 MPH. It meets interstate standards, even at 60 MPH.
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
You can certainly comment as that is a civil right in the U.S., but I can also comment right back.
I have a problem with anonymous posters when they start getting up in my face and overstepping certain personal boundaries.
What personal boundaries? I'm happy to stop, you need to clarify though.
Words from Captain Obvious:
If two interstate routes split apart, one of them will be on the left.
Neither of them is an exit, because an exit is a ramp that leaves the interstate system.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 14, 2019, 06:31:47 PM
Words from Captain Obvious:
If two interstate routes split apart, one of them will be on the left.
Neither of them is an exit, because an exit is a ramp that leaves the interstate system.
Continuity. I-40 is continuous through here, the left free-flowing ramps take you to I-73 South, not I-40. It's not "two routes splitting", it's I-40 continuing off to the right, and I-73 perpendicular to the roadway, and you exiting left onto it.
Though, in that regard, an I-87 to the right / VA-168 to the left split is the same thing. A left freeway to freeway exit, continuity to the right, where I-87 still has 2-lanes at 55 MPH.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2019, 08:16:30 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 14, 2019, 06:31:47 PM
Words from Captain Obvious:
If two interstate routes split apart, one of them will be on the left.
Neither of them is an exit, because an exit is a ramp that leaves the interstate system.
Continuity. I-40 is continuous through here, the left free-flowing ramps take you to I-73 South, not I-40. It's not "two routes splitting", it's I-40 continuing off to the right, and I-73 perpendicular to the roadway, and you exiting left onto it.
As the French would say, that is "gahr-baahzhze'".
This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road. One Interstate freeway roadway widens out to 5 lanes and then divides into two 3-lane Interstate freeway roadways. Driver expectancy is that either roadway is an Interstate highway mainline roadway. From a safety standpoint the whole transition is an Interstate mainline roadway that maintains full speed thru the whole area. These highways were built as Interstate highways when this scheme was designed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2019, 08:16:30 PM
Though, in that regard, an I-87 to the right / VA-168 to the left split is the same thing. A left freeway to freeway exit, continuity to the right, where I-87 still has 2-lanes at 55 MPH.
Not an Interstate highway now or previously.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2019, 07:42:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
A 5-lane Interstate freeway roadway splits into two 3-lane Interstate freeway roadways. That is a mainline split, and there is no lefthand offramp there.
So when the 3-lane I-464 Southbound splits into two 2-lane freeway roadways, that's a left exit, but this isn't?
That is not I-464 as that highway's southern terminus is at I-64.
Interstate 464 in Virginia is the 5.7-mile-long freeway from I-64 in the City of Chesapeake to I-264 in the Berkley section of City of Norfolk. Those are the official termini.
The southern leg when built was VA-104 Dominion Blvd.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2019, 07:42:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
It is questionable as to whether that southbound US-17 really should be as high as 55 mph.
Actually, not really, it's easily driveable at 60 MPH. You're assuming.
I can drive the I-195 Acca Yards viaduct at 60 to 62 mph but I would not recommend that speed for the general community. 50 or below.
A southerly alternative shows the same infeasibility issues as did the northerly alternative, for trying to ram a mainline Interstate highway thru there --
http://capital-beltway.com/VI-87-464-17-s.jpg
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2019, 07:42:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
The aforementioned sharp curves on US-17 and the fact that only 3 miles of Dominion Blvd. is freeway. In guardrailed sections an 8-foot paved right shoulder.
Your sharp shoulders meet at least 62 MPH design according to you, and with superelevation in account, this could be studied for higher speed.
I never claimed that on Dominion Blvd.'s design.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2019, 07:42:51 AM
Just like you can claim US 58 will have 70 MPH posted on substandard bypasses, it can easily happen here too.
Never said that it "will", just that the law would allow it pending the results of an engineering study.
I predicted that no metropolitan freeway general purpose lanes will be posted above 60 mph, based on what is practiced nearly everywhere in the U.S. That includes the city of Chesapeake.
Going well out into rural areas is another matter, that is normally where the higher limits like 70 begin.
The 19 miles of I-95 between Colonial Heights and Maury Street in Richmond was posted at 65 mph when it was part of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike back well before 1973. It has been 6-laned since then along with interchange improvements, and a paved median with a concrete median barrier was installed later; a considerably more modern and safe highway. Today it is 60 mph. When that gets raised I will believe it can happen in South Hampton Roads. Until then I won't.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2019, 07:42:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 12:13:08 AM
The best way to solve this issue IMHO is to leave Dominion Blvd. out of any Interstate highway proposal.
Ah, yes. More of this. The entirety of US-17 is a limited-access 4 lane highway, a design speed of 60 MPH (could be studied for higher), has a median of at least 42 foot (with one 2 mile exception), and is easily driveable at 65 MPH. It meets interstate standards, even at 60 MPH.
At-grade intersections do not meet Interstate highway standards. Dominion Blvd. has 8-foot paved right shoulders in guardrailed sections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAEcCvxxDtI
I must modify my previous assessment of the direction of this thread; it no longer resembles McEnroe v. Borg -- it's starting to look much more like Alexander Hamilton v. Aaron Burr! Let's just hope both parties are standing at the conclusion (if one ever occurs)!
Quote from: sparker on February 15, 2019, 02:48:04 AM
I must modify my previous assessment of the direction of this thread; it no longer resembles McEnroe v. Borg -- it's starting to look much more like Alexander Hamilton v. Aaron Burr! Let's just hope both parties are standing at the conclusion (if one ever occurs)!
No, it's more like Connor MacLeod vs. The Kurgan...
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
(https://realistlounge.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/highlander-1.jpg)
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 14, 2019, 06:31:47 PM
Words from Captain Obvious:
If two interstate routes split apart, one of them will be on the left.
Neither of them is an exit, because an exit is a ramp that leaves the interstate system.
Then why are most of these splits signed as exits, with exit numbers and the now-standard "LEFT" black-on-yellow tabs?
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road. One Interstate freeway roadway widens out to 5 lanes and then divides into two 3-lane Interstate freeway roadways. Driver expectancy is that either roadway is an Interstate highway mainline roadway. From a safety standpoint the whole transition is an Interstate mainline roadway that maintains full speed thru the whole area. These highways were built as Interstate highways when this scheme was designed.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
Not an Interstate highway now or previously.
VA-168 and US-17 split at the southern terminus of I-464. They are not signed as interstates, correct, but are both interstate-standard highway. Both highways have 10 foot paved shoulders, 12 foot travel lanes, are freeways. It's a multi-lane split, not a "single lane" exit to a lower class road. There's no difference between this and the I-40 / I-73 split, they're both multi-lane, would be signed as a Left Exit properly (currently, it's correct because VA-168 is the mainline, US-17 exits. This would be flipped), and they both are interstate-standard freeways, one signed as interstate. Just because it doesn't carry the blue and red shield doesn't make it different. They're equally high-quality high-speed roadways built to the same standard.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
I can drive the I-195 Acca Yards viaduct at 60 to 62 mph but I would not recommend that speed for the general community. 50 or below.
That's a viaduct, has two sharper curves, of course an advised speed would be 50 MPH. The 55 MPH US-17 ramp is straight with one curve onto the Dominion Blvd interstate-standard freeway, and is posted and driveable at 55 MPH. The majority of drivers, including semis, drive this at 55 MPH or higher. I've seen semis in the left and right lane taking the curve together, and both maintained their lane and 60 MPH around the curve.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
A southerly alternative shows the same infeasibility issues as did the northerly alternative, for trying to ram a mainline Interstate highway thru there --
http://capital-beltway.com/VI-87-464-17-s.jpg
Ah yes, your right exit appeal. Your option addresses none of the issues that the existing interchange has (which it really doesn't have any), except a higher speed limit. They are not going to destroy and abandoned a perfectly adequate mainly 55 MPH interchange built recently to appeal for a higher speed and right exits. If there's truly a 55 MPH design speed and right exits desired, here's a concept that would use existing location, and only replace or modify one single overpass. No homes destroyed, existing interchange mostly retained, and would satisfy your desires a lot cheaper than a full relocation. In today's costs, this would likely be about $50-60 million.
EDIT: Now thinking about it, this would be an interesting concept if I-87 was to run I-464. But I do not support a new location whatsoever, nor would almost anybody.
(https://i.ibb.co/T4ZD7YS/I87-Improved-Interchange.png)
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
I never claimed that on Dominion Blvd.'s design.
Referring to the southern section of US 17. The Dominion Blvd freeway is designed at 60 MPH.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
based on what is practiced nearly everywhere in the U.S.
That's beyond false. Many metropolitan areas have 65 MPH mainly and even 70 MPH in some cities. It's around the core downtown areas that are slower, 55 MPH or 60 MPH, but the suburbs usually have 65 MPH and 70 MPH.
The Northeast + Virginia have slower speeds through the suburb areas, and only higher speeds in rural areas, but most of the US does not follow this practice. I can name numerous of cities which have 65 MPH speed limits in suburbs, even some with 70 MPH, hell 75 MPH in some western ones.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
Going well out into rural areas is another matter, that is normally where the higher limits like 70 begin.
US-17 is a completely rural 4-lane highway beyond George Washington Hwy. It's not "suburban" or "urban" anymore.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
The 19 miles of I-95 between Colonial Heights and Maury Street in Richmond was posted at 65 mph when it was part of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike back well before 1973. It has been 6-laned since then along with interchange improvements, and a paved median with a concrete median barrier was installed later; a considerably more modern and safe highway. Today it is 60 mph. When that gets raised I will believe it can happen in South Hampton Roads. Until then I won't.
I-64 in Newport News was a 3-lane highway, and was widened to 4-lanes in the early 2000s. Full inner and outer shoulders, barrier wall, well designed. 60 MPH. In December 2018, it was raised to 65 MPH. Case in point.
It's funny, because you say no highway in South Hampton Roads will be posted beyond 60 MPH, yet you propose US 58 between I-664 and west of Suffolk (including the bypass) can be as high as 70 MPH. It can be considered rural, but pretty suburban on the bypass. US-17 in Chesapeake is way more rural than that highway, but you claim it can be only 60 MPH. You're blatantly contradicting yourself to make US-58 more attractive, and to shoot down US-17, Keep it consistent. If US-58 can be raised to 70 MPH, then US-17 can be raised to 70 MPH. If US-17 cannot be higher than 60 MPH, than US-58 cannot be higher than 60 MPH.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
At-grade intersections do not meet Interstate highway standards. Dominion Blvd. has 8-foot paved right shoulders in guardrailed sections.
*10 foot shoulders
The
cross-section of US-17 from I-64 to North Carolina meets interstate standards with one exception. The US-17 relocation done in 2005 has 8 foot shoulders, and this would likely involve adding 2 foot of pavement (since it's only 2 foot, not an entire shoulder, a full reconstruction of the shoulder would not be necessary) to the outside. This likely would not add much more than $15 million to the project, if that.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2019, 02:20:17 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 14, 2019, 06:31:47 PM
Words from Captain Obvious:
If two interstate routes split apart, one of them will be on the left.
Neither of them is an exit, because an exit is a ramp that leaves the interstate system.
Then why are most of these splits signed as exits, with exit numbers and the now-standard "LEFT" black-on-yellow tabs?
MUTCD requirements.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2019, 02:20:17 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 14, 2019, 06:31:47 PM
Words from Captain Obvious:
If two interstate routes split apart, one of them will be on the left.
Neither of them is an exit, because an exit is a ramp that leaves the interstate system.
Then why are most of these splits signed as exits, with exit numbers and the now-standard "LEFT" black-on-yellow tabs?
Because it is an exit, despite what people may claim. I never thought I'd have to argue something as simple and basic as this. When a ramp leaves an interstate, either to connect to another freeway / interstate or an arterial roadway, it is an EXIT of THAT highway. You can't argue this.
When a vehicle leaves I-40 to head onto I-73 South, they're EXITING I-40, via
Left Exit 212, take the left ramps to I-73 South. By saying you're not exiting I-40 is basically saying you're staying on I-40 which you're not, you're LEAVING I-40, therefore, exiting I-40 via
Left Exit 212.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.
Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "
Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.
Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.
So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:15:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.
Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.
So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?
Older interstate, and isn't even a freeway? What were they smoking when they called this an Interstate Highway? I think this is more vanity than I-87 is, as you say. This upgrade to I-73 / I-74 was done 5 years ago, existing freeway, and retained the exit.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:25:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:15:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.
Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.
So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?
Older interstate, and isn't even a freeway? What were they smoking when they called this an Interstate Highway? I think this is more vanity than I-87 is, as you say. This upgrade to I-73 / I-74 was done 5 years ago, existing freeway, and retained the exit.
Is this the I-73 section that you were referring to? Is this image reflective of what is there now?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Asheboro,+NC/@35.6988393,-79.831775,984a,35y,7.62h,44.71t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88535c6c3d4e2349:0x5057352bd6290399!8m2!3d35.7079146!4d-79.8136446
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:25:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:15:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.
Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.
So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?
Older interstate, and isn't even a freeway? What were they smoking when they called this an Interstate Highway? I think this is more vanity than I-87 is, as you say. This upgrade to I-73 / I-74 was done 5 years ago, existing freeway, and retained the exit.
Is this the I-73 section that you were referring to? Is this image reflective of what is there now?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Asheboro,+NC/@35.6988393,-79.831775,984a,35y,7.62h,44.71t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88535c6c3d4e2349:0x5057352bd6290399!8m2!3d35.7079146!4d-79.8136446
Yes, that's it. It still carries that design.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:53:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:25:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:15:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.
Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.
So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?
Older interstate, and isn't even a freeway? What were they smoking when they called this an Interstate Highway? I think this is more vanity than I-87 is, as you say. This upgrade to I-73 / I-74 was done 5 years ago, existing freeway, and retained the exit.
Is this the I-73 section that you were referring to? Is this image reflective of what is there now?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Asheboro,+NC/@35.6988393,-79.831775,984a,35y,7.62h,44.71t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88535c6c3d4e2349:0x5057352bd6290399!8m2!3d35.7079146!4d-79.8136446
Yes, that's it. It still carries that design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SKdN1xQBjk
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 11:06:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SKdN1xQBjk
Same thought when I first saw it :pan:
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.
Laughs in Pennsylvanian (https://goo.gl/maps/TpSqteGVQY12)
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:08:57 PM
Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.
With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it. It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.
There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:07:30 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:08:57 PM
Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.
With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it. It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.
There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.
By no means do I support it. My point is that left hand ramps do exist, and even on newer interstate upgrades. Either way, a VA-168 left exit for a conceptual I-87 wouldn't present an issue, because it would be freeway to freeway, 55 MPH, and no stopping, like existing. That was the point I was trying to make with this, I'm not "promoting it" .
See my posts above how a 55 MPH I-87 and right exit ramps could be incorporated into the existing interchange with no major modifications (1 bridge modification or replacement). I think some of your design concepts for north and south realignments were a bit crazy, not to sound offensive.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:07:30 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:08:57 PM
Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.
With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it. It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.
There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.
IIRC, FHWA allowed NCDOT to sign I-73/74 there with the understanding that the interchange would be upgraded later. Bob Malme or froggie would probably know more about it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 01:32:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:07:30 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:08:57 PM
Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.
With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it. It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.
There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.
By no means do I support it. My point is that left hand ramps do exist, and even on newer interstate upgrades. Either way, a VA-168 left exit for a conceptual I-87 wouldn't present an issue, because it would be freeway to freeway, 55 MPH, and no stopping, like existing. That was the point I was trying to make with this, I'm not "promoting it" .
Of course you are promoting it, why else would you have injected it into a discussion about left exits, and right there you used as an excuse to use left exits in Virginia. You are not an engineer and you don't care about highway engineering standards.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:42:29 PM
you used as an excuse to use left exits in Virginia.
Where did I suggest a left exit from a freeway / interstate to a non-freeway/non-interstate/local road in Virginia?
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:42:29 PM
You are not an engineer and you don't care about highway engineering standards.
Ah yes, I'm not an engineer, so I give no care about standards. Once again, never recommended it be added anywhere (freeway / interstate to a non-freeway/non-interstate/local road), but thanks for making things up.
Quote from: LM117 on February 16, 2019, 09:11:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:07:30 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:08:57 PM
Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.
With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it. It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.
There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.
IIRC, FHWA allowed NCDOT to sign I-73/74 there with the understanding that the interchange would be upgraded later. Bob Malme or froggie would probably know more about it.
That's correct, it's going to be corrected eventually. It has a hefty price tag, and is currently unfunded though.
http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg8.html
"The interchange improvements, now part of a different project, I-5105 covering 10.1 miles, from Business 220/NC 134 to 2 miles further north of Presnell Street, will include 'geometric, operational, and remaining safety improvements' with construction currently not funded (meaning currently not to start until after 2027). Work is currently estimated to cost $345 million."
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 03:35:14 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 16, 2019, 09:11:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:07:30 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:08:57 PM
Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.
With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it. It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.
There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.
IIRC, FHWA allowed NCDOT to sign I-73/74 there with the understanding that the interchange would be upgraded later. Bob Malme or froggie would probably know more about it.
That's correct, it's going to be corrected eventually. It has a hefty price tag, and is currently unfunded though.
http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg8.html
"The interchange improvements, now part of a different project, I-5105 covering 10.1 miles, from Business 220/NC 134 to 2 miles further north of Presnell Street, will include 'geometric, operational, and remaining safety improvements' with construction currently not funded (meaning currently not to start until after 2027). Work is currently estimated to cost $345 million."
I looked at that page earlier this morning.
"... until five deficient design elements in this section were corrected. Among the reasons this segment did not meet current interstate standards are that it featured a narrow median, thin left and right shoulders, short merge lanes and a left-side exit (for NC 42) [left-hand exits and entrances]"
"The project area covered 8 miles between just north of the Presnell Street exit to NC 134/US Bus. 220, where I-73/I-74 officially began from 1997 to mid-2012, for an estimated cost of $22.8 million."
So this helps explain the high cost estimate for VA I-73 as well as how N.C. is building it much more cheaply. I know from my own professional road design and construction experience that some major design deficiencies are not obvious to the naked eye, and some are not visible at all to the naked eye; you have to look at the construction design plans. Pavement designs and bridge structural designs can be substandard and not be visible to the naked eye as well.
My stance that a segment should not be designated as an Interstate highway until it meets normal Interstate highway standards. No excuses about how "it is too expensive" or any such nonsense. Simply leave it out until it meets standards.
This case also raises a lot of questions in my mind about the veracity of the N.C. VI-87 feasibility study.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 05:17:26 PM
The left exit to VA-168 south is the same type of exit that I-40 has with I-73. A left exit onto another freeway, 55 MPH, two-lanes, free flowing. It's not "unacceptable", as I-40's left exit isn't, but keep believing that if you wish.
Froggie explained it to you -- it is MUTCD that required that left exit tab, that tab wouldn't be there otherwise.
That was the 6-lane mainline of I-40 when it was built and is a 65 mph or better design, it was when I-40 was shifted back thru central Greensboro that the current signing was installed; plus a consequence of milepost numbering being used for exit numbering; plus a consequence of two overlapped Interstate routes splitting/joining.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:25:14 PM
That was the 6-lane mainline of I-40 when it was built and is a 65 mph or better design, it was when I-40 was shifted back thru central Greensboro that the current signing was installed; plus a consequence of milepost numbering being used for exit numbering; plus a consequence of two overlapped Interstate routes splitting/joining.
Let's clear some things up here.
Today's routing, none of the interstates overlap. I-73 runs north / south, I-40 runs east / west. When heading eastbound on I-40, you stay right to continue on I-40, the left exit takes you to I-73 South. When heading westbound on I-40, traffic comes in on the left from I-73 NB. Then 2 of the 3 mainline lanes from I-40 Westbound drop off, where I-73 NB to I-40 (not continous) keep their lanes. I understand the original intents, but they've changed, and according to you with I-87 becoming the mainline routing in VA (explained below how it's the same concept w/ both of these), the interchange design should've too.
The Oak Grove Interchange (I-464 / US-17 / VA-168) was designed with VA-168 having continuity. Today, US-17 to Elizabeth City when heading southbound is Exit 15, VA-168 is continuous (before, I-40 was continuous to the left) If I-87 is routed through here, I-87 would be continuous, and therefore leaving VA-168 not the mainline anymore, but a left exit or a freeway split off as you say (just like the mainline was routed from the left to the right in Greensboro, resulting in a left exit or split off to another freeway - I-73 SB). The same exact thing in Greensboro as would be at the Oak Grove Interchange. Both interchanges are fine today, and if the mainline (I-87 or I-40 EB) was routed to the right and you exit or split off to the left to go onto another freeway (VA-168 or I-73 SB), proper signage is used, and everything works out.
Please tell me how these two interchanges are different.... :hmmm:
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:25:14 PM
is a 65 mph or better design
Speed limit is 65 MPH, therefore interchange designed for that. In the Oak Grove Connector case, speed limit is 55 MPH, therefore interchange designed for that.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.
Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.
Did you just say "engineering judgment"? Ding ding ding!
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 05:28:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
I can drive the I-195 Acca Yards viaduct at 60 to 62 mph but I would not recommend that speed for the general community. 50 or below.
That's a viaduct, has two sharper curves, of course an advised speed would be 50 MPH. The 55 MPH US-17 ramp is straight with one curve onto the Dominion Blvd interstate-standard freeway, and is posted and driveable at 55 MPH. The majority of drivers, including semis, drive this at 55 MPH or higher. I've seen semis in the left and right lane taking the curve together, and both maintained their lane and 60 MPH around the curve.
Not my observation. Plus under busier traffic volumes the speeds quickly degrade, given the amount of merging and diverging in a relatively small area. Effectively not a 55 mph routing but below that.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 05:28:00 PM
Ah yes, your right exit appeal. Your option addresses none of the issues that the existing interchange has (which it really doesn't have any), except a higher speed limit. They are not going to destroy and abandoned a perfectly adequate mainly 55 MPH interchange built recently to appeal for a higher speed and right exits. If there's truly a 55 MPH design speed and right exits desired, here's a concept that would use existing location, and only replace or modify one single overpass. No homes destroyed, existing interchange mostly retained, and would satisfy your desires a lot cheaper than a full relocation. In today's costs, this would likely be about $50-60 million.
That actually appears workable. That plus the 7 new interchanges and service road construction and roadside improvements would place the total cost of a freeway upgrade of US-17 to over $200 million in 2020 costs.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 05:28:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
based on what is practiced nearly everywhere in the U.S.
That's beyond false. Many metropolitan areas have 65 MPH mainly and even 70 MPH in some cities. It's around the core downtown areas that are slower, 55 MPH or 60 MPH, but the suburbs usually have 65 MPH and 70 MPH.
The Northeast + Virginia have slower speeds through the suburb areas, and only higher speeds in rural areas, but most of the US does not follow this practice.
Plus the cities between New York and Chicago inclusive, lower speed limits until well out in the rural areas. About 1/3 of the U.S. population.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 05:28:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 12:52:35 AM
Going well out into rural areas is another matter, that is normally where the higher limits like 70 begin.
US-17 is a completely rural 4-lane highway beyond George Washington Hwy. It's not "suburban" or "urban" anymore.
It is in the City of Chesapeake and from what you have said major developments are planned in the southern part of the city. Certainly not planned to be "rural" in 2040.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 05:28:00 PM
I-64 in Newport News was a 3-lane highway, and was widened to 4-lanes in the early 2000s. Full inner and outer shoulders, barrier wall, well designed. 60 MPH. In December 2018, it was raised to 65 MPH. Case in point.
That is not South Hampton Roads and it is not 70 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 05:28:00 PM
It's funny, because you say no highway in South Hampton Roads will be posted beyond 60 MPH, yet you propose US 58 between I-664 and west of Suffolk (including the bypass) can be as high as 70 MPH. It can be considered rural, but pretty suburban on the bypass. US-17 in Chesapeake is way more rural than that highway, but you claim it can be only 60 MPH. You're blatantly contradicting yourself to make US-58 more attractive, and to shoot down US-17, Keep it consistent. If US-58 can be raised to 70 MPH, then US-17 can be raised to 70 MPH. If US-17 cannot be higher than 60 MPH, than US-58 cannot be higher than 60 MPH.
Do you get dizzy when you go thru all those logic exercises?
I thought I had made my position clear, that at this point I wouldn't -predict- any speed limit increases on those roads, and that would include 60 mph tops on US-17 in Chesapeake.
Really, the more I think about this, the more I think it is a fool's errand to try to predict what the speed limits will be in 2040 or 2045. Technology changes, automated safety systems, vehicle design changes, urbanization, who knows.
We could use today's speed limits as a base case, and that would include 60 mph in the City of Chesapeake.
But really, for predicting 2040 or 2045, speed limits should be completely dropped from any discussion about building this highway, because it can't be predicted today.
Repeat after me,
"it can't be predicted today."Repeat after me,
"it can't be predicted today."Repeat after me,
"it can't be predicted today."Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 05:28:00 PM
The cross-section of US-17 from I-64 to North Carolina meets interstate standards with one exception. The US-17 relocation done in 2005 has 8 foot shoulders, and this would likely involve adding 2 foot of pavement (since it's only 2 foot, not an entire shoulder, a full reconstruction of the shoulder would not be necessary) to the outside. This likely would not add much more than $15 million to the project, if that.
Depends on how thick the asphalt is on the shoulder, you can't just tack on 2 feet and necessarily have that work without the seam causing problems. Might need to mill down at least 3 inches and then pave over the widened shoulder.
The 3-foot left shoulder doesn't meet current VDOT Interstate standards, so that would need to be widened to 4 feet.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 08:52:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:25:14 PM
That was the 6-lane mainline of I-40 when it was built and is a 65 mph or better design, it was when I-40 was shifted back thru central Greensboro that the current signing was installed; plus a consequence of milepost numbering being used for exit numbering; plus a consequence of two overlapped Interstate routes splitting/joining.
Let's clear some things up here.
Today's routing, none of the interstates overlap. I-73 runs north / south, I-40 runs east / west. When heading eastbound on I-40, you stay right to continue on I-40, the left exit takes you to I-73 South. When heading westbound on I-40, traffic comes in on the left from I-73 NB. Then 2 of the 3 mainline lanes from I-40 Westbound drop off, where I-73 NB to I-40 (not continous) keep their lanes. I understand the original intents, but they've changed, and according to you with I-87 becoming the mainline routing in VA (explained below how it's the same concept w/ both of these), the interchange design should've too.
Move I-40 back to the south leg of the loop, and your "problems" disappear, and nothing would change on the physical highway itself. Of course, NCDOT could decide to do just that in the future, so complaining about the physical highway itself is a meaningless exercise.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 08:52:12 PM
The Oak Grove Interchange (I-464 / US-17 / VA-168) was designed with VA-168 having continuity. Today, US-17 to Elizabeth City when heading southbound is Exit 15, VA-168 is continuous (before, I-40 was continuous to the left) If I-87 is routed through here, I-87 would be continuous, and therefore leaving VA-168 not the mainline anymore, but a left exit or a freeway split off as you say (just like the mainline was routed from the left to the right in Greensboro, resulting in a left exit or split off to another freeway - I-73 SB).
VA-168 and US-17 were not built with the intent to be in the Interstate system. It hasn't even been decided whether there will be an I-87 in Virginia, or whether it would follow VA-168 or US-17 if it were to be built.
I have seen the plate that shows the US-17/NC-168 connector just south of the border, so that shows that NCDOT may decide to route it over to NC-168, so VA-168 would be a possible routing, but that would need upgrading and is already planned for 6-lane widening in the 2040 city master plan.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 08:52:12 PM
The same exact thing in Greensboro as would be at the Oak Grove Interchange. Both interchanges are fine today, and if the mainline (I-87 or I-40 EB) was routed to the right and you exit or split off to the left to go onto another freeway (VA-168 or I-73 SB), proper signage is used, and everything works out.
Please tell me how these two interchanges are different....
The Greensboro I-40/I-840 interchange was built to be a high-speed Interstate highway System Interchange and in recent years. The Oak Grove Interchange was not built with the Interstate system in mind, and it is a compact, small interchange.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
Not my observation. Plus under busier traffic volumes the speeds quickly degrade, given the amount of merging and diverging in a relatively small area. Effectively not a 55 mph routing but below that.
There's one left 55 MPH exit to VA-168, then one local road exit to Great Bridge Blvd. There's no merge on once you past I-64, which is already planned for a massive overhaul in the I-64 Phase 2 project. I've never seen traffic here flow below 55 MPH, and I go through this interchange quite frequently, both down US-17 and VA-168.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
That actually appears workable. That plus the 7 new interchanges and service road construction and roadside improvements would place the total cost of a freeway upgrade of US-17 to over $200 million in 2020 costs.
*5 interchanges. The other two interchanges to serve a farm and one house do not count, they aren't going to be built, there's absolutely no justification.
Ballahack Rd - $15 million
Cornland Rd - $15 million
George Washington Hwy - $20 million
Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
Frontage Roads - $10 million
$120 million for 5 interchanges + frontage road. If a Oak Grove Interchange overhaul is needed to satisfy your right exit and 55 MPH theorem, you could add $50 million, and be at about $170 million. I wouldn't predict higher than $200 million, in today's dollars. And this satisfies an interchange at Grassfield Pkwy + your right exit and 55 MPH theorem at the Oak Grove Interchange.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
The Northeast + Virginia have slower speeds through the suburb areas, and only higher speeds in rural areas, but most of the US does not follow this practice.
Plus the cities between New York and Chicago inclusive, lower speed limits until well out in the rural areas. About 1/3 of the U.S. population.[/quote]
1/3 is less than "nearly everywhere". Major cities in California, North Carolina, and everything in between mostly use 65 MPH and 70 MPH speed limits, seen 75 MPH in some Texas urban areas, though that's Texas being Texas.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
It is in the City of Chesapeake and from what you have said major developments are planned in the southern part of the city. Certainly not planned to be "rural" in 2040.
A megasite is proposed at the bottom of the city, which are usually located in rural areas. Distribution centers, warehouses, etc. located off the interstate. No neighborhoods or anything big. There's conservation and recreational uses planned along the trail. The area between the megasite and George Washington Hwy is all slated to be rural in the land use plan, and certainly citizens will continue to fight to keep the existing rural areas that are proposed for development.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
That is not South Hampton Roads and it is not 70 mph.
It's certainly in a suburban / urban area. I-64 through Short Pump, a suburban area in the Richmond area is 65 MPH. All of I-295 around the north side of Richmond is 70 MPH. There's neighborhoods and suburbs around the entire highway.
When did I mention 70 MPH in regards about I-64 on the Peninsula? You said above 60 MPH. Look, I'm not an expert in math, but I'm pretty sure 65 MPH is above 60 MPH.
If an urbanized 6-8 lane I-540 and I-485 can hold 70 MPH around Raleigh and Charlotte, than a rural 4-lane I-87 can hold at least 65 MPH in Southern Chesapeake. Doesn't have to be 70 MPH, but at least 65 MPH is certainly possible. The 70 MPH signs would start at the North Carolina border.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
Do you get dizzy when you go thru all those logic exercises?
I thought I had made my position clear, that at this point I wouldn't -predict- any speed limit increases on those roads, and that would include 60 mph tops on US-17 in Chesapeake.
Funny, last week you mentioned both of these in the same exact post -
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 12:44:11 AM
Only time will tell, but count me very surprised if any general purpose roadway in South Hampton Roads is ever posted above 60 mph.
Then further down the post...
Quote from: Beltway on February 09, 2019, 12:44:11 AM
You act like the speed limits will not (or can not) be increased along US-58, yet according to your 'advocacy standards', the bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland could be increased to 70 mph, along with the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill after the two at-grade intersections have been replaced with interchanges ...
Both of the bolded examples are in South Hampton Roads. Southern Chesapeake is far more rural and far less traffic and far better engineered than the Suffolk bypass. A few sharp turns, 60,000 AADT, development off every exit...
Appears to me you can't make up your mind. According to your most-recent predictions, US 58 stays 60 MPH between Bowers Hill and the US 13 bypass / west end of US 58 bypass, correct?
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
Really, the more I think about this, the more I think it is a fool's errand to try to predict what the speed limits will be in 2040 or 2045. Technology changes, automated safety systems, vehicle design changes, urbanization, who knows.
But really, for predicting 2040 or 2045, speed limits should be completely dropped from any discussion about building this highway, because it can't be predicted today.
Oh, it really is. You boasted above about US 58 having a 65 MPH speed on rural areas, and 70 MPH on the bypasses (see above). Just playing the same game here. Maybe we should end all the discussions about speed limits, on both US 17
and US 58. I'm down.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
The 3-foot left shoulder doesn't meet current VDOT Interstate standards, so that would need to be widened to 4 feet.
US-17 between North Carolina and Dominion Blvd has two 12 foot lanes, a 4 foot left paved shoulder, and an 8 foot right paved shoulder.
Dominion Blvd has two 12 foot lanes, a 4 foot left paved shoulder, and a 10 foot right paved shoulder.
None of the left shoulders are less than 4 feet.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
Move I-40 back to the south leg of the loop, and your "problems" disappear, and nothing would change on the physical highway itself. Of course, NCDOT could decide to do just that in the future, so complaining about the physical highway itself is a meaningless exercise.
Yes, it's appropriate to put "problems" in quotations - because it's not a problem. Left high speed exits to another freeway are fine.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
VA-168 and US-17 were not built with the intent to be in the Interstate system. It hasn't even been decided whether there will be an I-87 in Virginia, or whether it would follow VA-168 or US-17 if it were to be built.
I have seen the plate that shows the US-17/NC-168 connector just south of the border, so that shows that NCDOT may decide to route it over to NC-168, so VA-168 would be a possible routing, but that would need upgrading and is already planned for 6-lane widening in the 2040 city master plan.
It was not built with an intent to be in the Interstate system, but they were designed to full Interstate highway standards. I've refuted this many times, I'm not going to do it again. The US-17 / NC-168 connector would likely be constructed as its own facility, the ramps at proposed I-87 at the Welcome Center indicate it's an exit, not the mainline. Currituck County has requested I-87 to take that route, but anybody with a brain can see that's not going to happen. Once you get into Virginia the problems begin. Upgrading 2 miles of at-grade roadway to freeway is a complex task, especially the way this is done. The curves would have to be straightened out. They're currently posted at 55 MPH, and if you want to talk about curves that shouldn't be posted as high as 55 MPH, look at this. I don't understand why Chesapeake claims above 45 MPH on the straight Dominion Blvd built with a wide median (46 foot consistent, than 60 ft at Scenic Pkwy), an interstate cross-section and two traffic lights between Scenic Pkwy and Grassfield Pkwy is dangerous, yet the windy section of VA-168 is 55 MPH, and a raised median, AND has two traffic signals.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
The Greensboro I-40/I-840 interchange was built to be a high-speed Interstate highway System Interchange and in recent years. The Oak Grove Interchange was not built with the Interstate system in mind, and it is a compact, small interchange.
The Oak Grove Interchange was built in 1999. The Greensboro Interchange was built in 2008. That's a 9 year difference. The Oak Grove Interchange was built with 55 MPH high-speed 2-lane connectors. Certainly the VA-168 leg was designed with a 55 MPH high-speed interstate-standard highway in mind. In fact, in case you didn't know, the Oak Grove Interchange was built
with VA-168, and specifically
for VA-168. The I-464 South to US-17 South leg is a 55 MPH two-lane connector, and the only 45 MPH leg which is US-17 North to I-464 North can either have an advisory speed, or the $50 - 60 million interchange reconstruction I proposed to eliminate it, and satisfy your right exit theorem, knocking two birds out with one stone, if it's truly necessary. I honestly do support the interchange reconstruction eventually for I-87, but it's not a dire priority just to complete I-87, as the existing interchange will suffice, and until traffic capacity indicates the need for the 55 MPH and right exit theorem to be applied, it's not needed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 17, 2019, 03:12:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:52:33 AM
That actually appears workable. That plus the 7 new interchanges and service road construction and roadside improvements would place the total cost of a freeway upgrade of US-17 to over $200 million in 2020 costs.
*5 interchanges. The other two interchanges to serve a farm and one house do not count, they aren't going to be built, there's absolutely no justification.
Ballahack Rd - $15 million
Cornland Rd - $15 million
George Washington Hwy - $20 million
Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
Frontage Roads - $10 million
Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport
Pleasant Grove Parkway (near Eaglet Parkway)
These junctions are in the 2050 city master plan and an interchange there would be directly chargeable to a US-17 freeway upgrade whether paid for by the city or state.
You can't just assume a 2-lane connector and 4 finger ramps for the southerly interchanges. Traffic engineering studies would need to look at development patterns in 2050, and it is quite possible that one or more will need a 4-lane connector road and one or more loops in addition to the 4 finger ramps. That would considerably increase the costs of those.
Plus the shoulder widening and improvements.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 17, 2019, 03:12:46 AM
$120 million for 5 interchanges + frontage road. If a Oak Grove Interchange overhaul is needed to satisfy your right exit and 55 MPH theorem, you could add $50 million, and be at about $170 million. I wouldn't predict higher than $200 million, in today's dollars. And this satisfies an interchange at Grassfield Pkwy + your right exit and 55 MPH theorem at the Oak Grove Interchange.
Easily $200 million in 2020 dollars, maybe $250 million.
Inflation-factored out to 2040 completion, would be in the $500 to $600 million range.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 17, 2019, 03:12:46 AM
When did I mention 70 MPH in regards about I-64 on the Peninsula? You said above 60 MPH. Look, I'm not an expert in math, but I'm pretty sure 65 MPH is above 60 MPH.
But really, for predicting 2040 or 2045, speed limits should be completely dropped from any discussion about building this highway, because it can't be predicted today.
Repeat after me, "
It can't be predicted today."
Repeat after me, "
It can't be predicted today."Repeat after me,
"It can't be predicted today.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 09:24:36 AM
Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport
Pleasant Grove Parkway (near Eaglet Parkway)
These junctions are in the 2050 city master plan and an interchange there would be directly chargeable to a US-17 freeway upgrade whether paid for by the city or state.
You can't just assume a 2-lane connector and 4 finger ramps for the southerly interchanges. Traffic engineering studies would need to look at development patterns in 2050, and it is quite possible that one or more will need a 4-lane connector road and one or more loops in addition to the 4 finger ramps. That would considerably increase the costs of those.
Plus the shoulder widening and improvements.
Easily $200 million in 2020 dollars, maybe $250 million.
Inflation-factored out to 2040 completion, would be in the $500 to $600 million range.
For the southerly interchanges, I would for the most part assume a rural diamond interchange would suffice. I certainly couldn't see the need for an additional loop ramp. An interchange at Cornland Rd would already be a partial cloverleaf to avoid impacts to properties. Those roadways have about 2,000 AADT, once you close a couple of them, it could be about 4,000 AADT at one interchange, and no large-scale developments planned.
The Airport Access Road Relocation and the Pleasant Grove Pkwy projects would be constructed with their own projects. You couldn't construct an interchange at Pleasant Grove Pkwy because there's nowhere to go from there. The Airport Access Road Relocation is debatable. Once the Pleasant Grove Pkwy ever gets funding (I don't even think it'll make it this far), it will then have an interchange built with a US-17 freeway, and charged on its own.
But for the sake of not knowing what will happen for sure, here's 8 estimates based on 8 options. A low-ball build (5 interchanges, no Oak Grove reconstruction) would be $130 million. Medium, (5 interchanges, and Oak Grove reconstruction) would be $190 million. If you added your two roads in + Oak Grove Interchange, $235 million.
Here's a concept of the $190 million option - https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/Upgrading_US_Route_17/YamBCRZZuC
So not knowing what's going to happen, we can say between $130 - 235 million. If we're definitely going to reconstruct the Oak Grove Interchange, then $190 - 235 million. As for inflation, it may look like an extremely high number, but that's also when a typical freeway upgrade would cost that much, and other urban projects would be even more expensive. I bet if you saw these cost estimates for today back in the 80s and 90s, it'd look crazy expensive. All of I-664 was built in the 90s for only $1 billion, 20 miles of freeway, plus tunnel & 4 miles of bridge. Now the HRBT is costing $4 billion, and not even new freeway.
Option 1 - rural interchanges, no Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction - $130 million
- Ballahack Rd - $15 million
- Cornland Rd - $15 million
- George Washington Hwy - $20 million
- Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
- Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
- Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $20 million
Option 2 - rural interchanges, Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction - $190 million
- Ballahack Rd - $15 million
- Cornland Rd - $15 million
- George Washington Hwy - $20 million
- Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
- Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
- Oak Grove Interchange - $60 million
- Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $20 million
Option 3 - complex rural interchanges, no Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction - $140 million
- Ballahack Rd - $20 million
- Cornland Rd - $20 million
- George Washington Hwy - $20 million
- Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
- Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
- Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $20 million
Option 4 - complex rural interchanges, Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction - $200 million
- Ballahack Rd - $20 million
- Cornland Rd - $20 million
- George Washington Hwy - $20 million
- Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
- Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
- Oak Grove Interchange - $60 million
- Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $20 million
Option 5 - rural interchanges, no Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction, Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $175 million
- Ballahack Rd - $15 million
- Cornland Rd - $15 million
- George Washington Hwy - $20 million
- Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
- Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
- Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $50 million
- Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $15 million (reduced frontage road cost because Pleasant Grove Pkwy would serve areas otherwise by frontage roads)
Option 6 - rural interchanges, Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction, Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $235 million
- Ballahack Rd - $15 million
- Cornland Rd - $15 million
- George Washington Hwy - $20 million
- Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
- Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
- Oak Grove Interchange - $60 million
- Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $50 million
- Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $15 million (reduced frontage road cost because Pleasant Grove Pkwy would serve areas otherwise by frontage roads)
Option 7 - complex rural interchanges, no Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction, Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $185 million
- Ballahack Rd - $20 million
- Cornland Rd - $20 million
- George Washington Hwy - $20 million
- Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
- Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
- Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $50 million
- Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $15 million (reduced frontage road cost because Pleasant Grove Pkwy would serve areas otherwise by frontage roads)
Option 8 - complex rural interchanges, Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction, Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $245 million
- Ballahack Rd - $20 million
- Cornland Rd - $20 million
- George Washington Hwy - $20 million
- Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
- Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
- Oak Grove Interchange - $60 million
- Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $50 million
- Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $15 million (reduced frontage road cost because Pleasant Grove Pkwy would serve areas otherwise by frontage roads)
Locking to clean-up and calm the crowd down
Unlocking after a 24-hour cooldown
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 08:25:26 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
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?
If you're still interested, the groundbreaking ceremony is set for April 24.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/04/10/CSX-set-to-begin-work-on-new-rail-terminal.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/04/10/CSX-set-to-begin-work-on-new-rail-terminal.html)
Second megasite proposed along the I-87 / US-17 corridor. The other proposed one is in Chesapeake, VA just north of the Virginia - North Carolina border.
Two things this has going for it that Chesapeake's doesn't, however, is that there are railroad tracks just south of the site, which connect into Virginia via Moyock. Could become another major freight line in the long-term future heading towards the Port of Norfolk is this megasite is indeed constructed. Another thing is that the infrastructure is more in place here than with Chesapeake's. Interchange access is already constructed with I-87 / US-17, good connections into Elizabeth City itself, and the is already a retail / developed area at that interchange, and new housing going in. This, combined with the proposed Chesapeake site could potentially bring an increase in truck traffic heading down the I-87 / US-17 corridor having two megasites, then connecting to other destinations west of Elizabeth City and to I-95.
Quote
Pasquotank County officials have begun pursuing a "Tanglewood Megasite" next to the U.S. 17 Bypass near Halstead Boulevard Extended.
What is the Tanglewood Megasite? How does it become a reality and when? And why would it be game-changing for the community?
Christian Lockamy, director of the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Economic Development Commission, and other county officials delved into those questions in a series of interviews last week.
According to Lockamy, industrial megasites, such as in Kingsboro, are typically 1,000 acres or more and "can be used to locate a large, advanced manufacturer along with their suppliers and distributors."
Pasquotank County has several industrial parks, including the Commerce Park north of Elizabeth City and the joint city-county industrial park off Weeksville Road, but no megasite. To offer a massive amount of land primed for development could draw a transformative employer or employers to the area, county officials said.
"That's a potential game-changer," County Manager Sparty Hammett said Thursday.
The site could draw the kinds of employers that grow a community through an increased workforce and high wages – increasing the community's wealth and not just recirculating it, he explained.
Why the Tanglewood area?
According to Lockamy, the Tanglewood area is eyed for the megasite because it's uniquely large, well-situated, and ideal for development.
Tanglewood offers 5,000 acres or more for a potential megasite, Lockamy wrote in an email, and the area was selected in large part because it's next to railroad tracks to south and, a four-lane transportation corridor tapped as a future interstate to the east. The county has also long eyed the land for industrial development, he noted.
"Moving that site somewhere else and having the same attractive offering to an industrial end-user would be near impossible," Lockamy said.
So how does the county turn that 5,000 acres, much of it farmland, into a megasite?
The county is looking at a private-public partnership with the area's multiple property owners, Lockamy said. The county also doesn't need all, or even most of that acreage, to create an attractive industrial offering, he explained. Depending on layout and acreage, it could be a "stand-alone site, industrial park, or a megasite if enough acreage is assembled," he said.
With owners' agreement, the county would pursue what is known as "site certification" and promote the site for industrial development, Lockamy continued.
He stressed the talks with property owners are in early, sensitive stages, and declined to identify them.
A public-private partnership
What the partnership would look like has yet to be determined, but Lockamy acknowledged such partnerships sometimes require infrastructure investment.
"These type of public-private partnerships are structured in different ways," he said. "Trying to figure out ahead of time how this will look is premature and could jeopardize the project."
He said the goal of a public-private partnership is "to limit risk to the local government" involved, and "that does generally mean that the local government puts its money in infrastructure improvements instead of acquisition costs."
Hammett similarly said the county is not looking to buy land, but to help elevate it for purchase by industries.
Lockamy said if the county and landowners do agree to a partnership, the county would expect a commitment from them to sell the land for industrial use. "There would be protections for both the county and landowners in a partnership agreement," he said.
If the Tanglewood land is so attractive, one might wonder why the county needs to help landowners sell it. According to Lockamy, assembling and certifying industrial sites as 'shovel-ready' without local government's help can be "almost impossible without a lot of upfront investment by the landowners."
"Unfortunately, industrial development in North Carolina and many other states cannot flourish without the public's involvement," he said.
Hammett noted there's been industrial interest in the property in years past, but nothing materialized.
"You've got to make it easy" for industries to locate in a community, Hammett said.
Megasite a county goal
Pursuing megasite development is one of county commissioners' new, official goals, and commissioners generally endorsed the effort in phone interviews.
Board of Commissioners Chairman Jeff Dixon said a certified megasite would put Pasquotank "in a higher bracket" for industrial recruitment. He also said certifying the site for industrial use would help "protect" it from other uses with less economic benefit. He cited a large-scale solar farm proposed there last year as one example.
Dixon also noted that the name, Tanglewood Megasite, is only a working name, and it could change.
Board Vice Chairman Lloyd Griffin said the county had considered the area for industry some 15 years ago, around when the U.S. 17 Bypass was built. There was even a company interested in a 1,500-acre-plus facility there, but the idea proved to be "pie in the sky," he said.
Griffin also said the site already had infrastructure in place – which would greatly minimize costs of site certification.
Griffin also praised Lockamy for pursuing the initiative, saying he was trying to help the county "get ahead of the curve" and better compete with other communities.
Commissioner Charles Jordan similarly praised the initiative's potential to spur growth. Asked if the effort would carry significant costs or liabilities for the county, Jordan said he didn't think so, but county staff will study that.
"˜A voluntary project'
Commissioner Frankie Meads supported the initiative as well, but also stressed he wanted megasite development to be a "voluntary project."
"The landowners will make the decision," Meads said, adding the county should not dictate how people use their land. He also noted that some of megasite acreage includes valuable, high-quality farmland.
Meads also said that, for Pasquotank to successfully recruit a major industry, it needs to do more than certify a megasite. It also needs to better develop its workforce, he said.
He explained that he and other local employers sometimes struggle to find qualified people for even basic jobs, let alone advanced industry.
Commissioner Sean Lavin strongly supported Tanglewood Megasite development, and praised Lockamy as doing a "great job" and working to limit risk to the county.
Lavin also agreed the Tanglewood acreage was "prime" for industrial development. It offers great connectivity to "every transportation option," he said. In addition to railroad and future interstate access, it's also a short drive to the Elizabeth City Regional Airport and within an hour of the Port of Virginia, he noted.
Lavin also strongly supports the county focusing its economic development efforts on major industry. Major industries grow a community and increase wages in ways that common, smaller businesses can't, he said.
"We've tired of taking Mickey Mouse steps" to grow the economy, he said.
Commissioners Cecil Perry and Barry Overman could not be reached for comment for this story.
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/04/07/Pasquotank-to-pursue-Tanglewood-megasite.html
Rah, rah, rah, economic boosterism. Rah, rah, rah. Typical local politicians.
Have fun trying to develop 8 square miles of land.
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 11:25:48 PM
Rah, rah, rah, economic boosterism. Rah, rah, rah. Typical local politicians.
Have fun trying to develop 8 square miles of land.
I'll check back in 2040. Maybe something will be done then... maybe :hmmm:
Beginning next week, the exit numbers on the Knightdale Bypass will be changing to I-87 exit numbers. Work is scheduled to be complete by the end of July. The new exit numbers are listed in the press release.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 10:38:28 AM
Beginning next week, the exit numbers on the Knightdale Bypass will be changing to I-87 exit numbers. Work is scheduled to be complete by the end of July. The new exit numbers are listed in the press release.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx)
My problem with this is why didn't they just put I-87 on 440 and end the highway near Cary (or wherever US1/US64 no longer meet Interstate Standards)? It could have been a legitimate push to get this highway running to Columbia SC.
Quote from: Mr. ENC on May 10, 2019, 02:13:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 10:38:28 AM
Beginning next week, the exit numbers on the Knightdale Bypass will be changing to I-87 exit numbers. Work is scheduled to be complete by the end of July. The new exit numbers are listed in the press release.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx)
My problem with this is why didn't they just put I-87 on 440 and end the highway near Cary (or wherever US1/US64 no longer meet Interstate Standards)? It could have been a legitimate push to get this highway running to Columbia SC.
Because there's no local push to extend I-87 along US-1 and even if I-87 does go south of Raleigh, it would end in Rockingham since South Carolina is broke. They can't even get I-73 started. Hell, they can barely maintain what they have.
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 05:07:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. ENC on May 10, 2019, 02:13:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 10:38:28 AM
Beginning next week, the exit numbers on the Knightdale Bypass will be changing to I-87 exit numbers. Work is scheduled to be complete by the end of July. The new exit numbers are listed in the press release.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx)
My problem with this is why didn't they just put I-87 on 440 and end the highway near Cary (or wherever US1/US64 no longer meet Interstate Standards)? It could have been a legitimate push to get this highway running to Columbia SC.
Because there's no local push to extend I-87 along US-1 and even if I-87 does go south of Raleigh, it would end in Rockingham since South Carolina is broke. They can't even get I-73 started.
Note that they probably should have used mile markers if they were going to list all of them instead of just the exit numbers for the interchanges...
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 10, 2019, 05:08:21 PM
Note that they probably should have used mile markers if they were going to list all of them instead of just the exit numbers for the interchanges...
They will probably change the mile markers as well on the highway. They aren't going to list them in the press release though because for drivers who use the highway and will be impacted by the change, that's the least of their concern.
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 10:38:28 AM
Beginning next week, the exit numbers on the Knightdale Bypass will be changing to I-87 exit numbers. Work is scheduled to be complete by the end of July. The new exit numbers are listed in the press release.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx)
It still bugs me they are ending I-87 at I-40 and having that dumb overlap, instead of either A) decommissioning that wrong-way segment of I-440 or B) ending I-87 at I-440.
But hey, nice to see this getting done. The next segment that will be upgraded to interstates will be the segment between Knightdale and US-264 in Zebulon in about 5 years or so, because when that's widened to 6 lanes, it will also be reconstructed to proper 6-lane interstate highway standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2019, 05:37:23 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 10:38:28 AM
Beginning next week, the exit numbers on the Knightdale Bypass will be changing to I-87 exit numbers. Work is scheduled to be complete by the end of July. The new exit numbers are listed in the press release.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx)
It still bugs me they are ending I-87 at I-40 and having that dumb overlap, instead of either A) decommissioning that wrong-way segment of I-440 or B) ending I-87 at I-440.
Same here. If it was good enough for I-495 to end at I-440, then there's no reason not to the same with I-87. NCDOT actually considered decommissioning that stretch of I-440, but obviously they chose not to for whatever reason.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2019, 05:35:05 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 10, 2019, 05:08:21 PM
Note that they probably should have used mile markers if they were going to list all of them instead of just the exit numbers for the interchanges...
They will probably change the mile markers as well on the highway. They aren't going to list them in the press release though because for drivers who use the highway and will be impacted by the change, that's the least of their concern.
I was attempting to critique the use of exit numbers on the press release when they included all the mile markers. I presume that both are being changed.
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 07:17:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2019, 05:37:23 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 10:38:28 AM
Beginning next week, the exit numbers on the Knightdale Bypass will be changing to I-87 exit numbers. Work is scheduled to be complete by the end of July. The new exit numbers are listed in the press release.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx)
It still bugs me they are ending I-87 at I-40 and having that dumb overlap, instead of either A) decommissioning that wrong-way segment of I-440 or B) ending I-87 at I-440.
Same here. If it was good enough for I-495 to end at I-440, then there's no reason not to the same with I-87. NCDOT actually considered decommissioning that stretch of I-440, but obviously they chose not to for whatever reason.
I-495 was a 3di. I-87 is a 2di. I do agree that the overlap is dumb though. I-440 should be truncated.
Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2019, 09:57:32 PM
I-495 was a 3di. I-87 is a 2di. I do agree that the overlap is dumb though. I-440 should be truncated.
Agreed, or at minimum, I-87's exit numbers and mile markers should take over I-440 if it's retained. I-440 is a 3-d, I-87 is a 2-d, therefore I-87 should have higher priority.
The I-840 / I-73 overlap in Greensboro favors I-73 numbers and mile markers, not I-840.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2019, 10:05:19 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2019, 09:57:32 PM
I-495 was a 3di. I-87 is a 2di. I do agree that the overlap is dumb though. I-440 should be truncated.
Agreed, or at minimum, I-87's exit numbers and mile markers should take over I-440 if it's retained. I-440 is a 3-d, I-87 is a 2-d, therefore I-87 should have higher priority.
The I-840 / I-73 overlap in Greensboro favors I-73 numbers and mile markers, not I-840.
Normally, I would agree with the policy of exit numbers favoring the 2di in a 2di/3di concurrency, but in this case that would result in I-440 having the same exit numbers (1 and 2) on both ends which could be confusing. Now, if I-440 is removed from this stretch, that's another story.
Have the numbers past Exit 14 (old exit 430) changed at all, or will they stay the same until those portions are officially part of Interstate 87?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 11, 2019, 04:38:07 PM
Have the numbers past Exit 14 (old exit 430) changed at all, or will they stay the same until those portions are officially part of Interstate 87?
Well currently, no numbers at all have been changed. By July, they'll be changed to existing Exit 430, new Exit 14.
But to answer your question, nothing east of Exit 14 (Exit 430) will be changed until those segments become I-87. In about five years, 7 miles of US-64 will be widened from 4 to 6 lanes to the US-264 (Future I-587) split. When that segment is widened, it will also be reconstructed to 6-lane interstate standards, and presumably become I-87. That would extend the exit numbers and mile markers to that point. Anything beyond that is unknown, but the majority of the highway to I-95 will simply need widened shoulders. The segment around Nashville would need full reconstruction, new bridges, and likely a jersey barrier to replace the narrow substandard median.
In my opinion, the focus should be more towards upgrading the arterial segments of US-17 to interstate standards, then once the full freeway is created in the corridor, upgrade the older freeways to modern interstate standards with shoulders, etc. US-64 and the existing US-17 freeway bypasses should be the last pieces to completed of I-87 IMO.
Edit - When I say US-64 should be the last piece, I'm not referring to the 6-lane widening upcoming. That's definitely needed. I was referring to upgrading the rural existing 4-lane segments to interstate standards that would still be 4-lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2019, 05:25:26 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 11, 2019, 04:38:07 PM
Have the numbers past Exit 14 (old exit 430) changed at all, or will they stay the same until those portions are officially part of Interstate 87?
Well currently, no numbers at all have been changed. By July, they'll be changed to existing Exit 430, new Exit 14.
But to answer your question, nothing east of Exit 14 (Exit 430) will be changed until those segments become I-87. In about five years, 7 miles of US-64 will be widened from 4 to 6 lanes to the US-264 (Future I-587) split. When that segment is widened, it will also be reconstructed to 6-lane interstate standards, and presumably become I-87. That would extend the exit numbers and mile markers to that point. Anything beyond that is unknown, but the majority of the highway to I-95 will simply need widened shoulders. The segment around Nashville would need full reconstruction, new bridges, and likely a jersey barrier to replace the narrow substandard median.
In my opinion, the focus should be more towards upgrading the arterial segments of US-17 to interstate standards, then once the full freeway is created in the corridor, upgrade the older freeways to modern interstate standards with shoulders, etc. US-64 and the existing US-17 freeway bypasses should be the last pieces to completed of I-87 IMO.
Edit - When I say US-64 should be the last piece, I'm not referring to the 6-lane widening upcoming. That's definitely needed. I was referring to upgrading the rural existing 4-lane segments to interstate standards that would still be 4-lanes.
I agree this is probably what's going to happen. The alternative would be what was done along US 74 in 2012 when all the exits east of I-95 were given I-74 mileage based numbers and I-74 mileposts were placed along US 74 as far as Delco (which lended support to the idea of the eventual route's end being switched to Wilmington). All new US 74 exits built since then have also been given I-74 numbers. Perhaps it would be something to consider if sections east of I-95 are completed first so not to have exit numbers change twice for someone traveling the corridor from Raleigh to Williamston.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 11, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
The alternative would be what was done along US 74 in 2012 when all the exits east of I-95 were given I-74 mileage based numbers and I-74 mileposts were placed along US 74 as far as Delco (which lended support to the idea of the eventual route's end being switched to Wilmington). All new US 74 exits built since then have also been given I-74 numbers. Perhaps it would be something to consider if sections east of I-95 are completed first so not to have exit numbers change twice for someone traveling the corridor from Raleigh to Williamston.
That's interesting, I've always just thought that was US-74 exit numbers. It appears they start as far west as on the Laurinburg Bypass. That's where the continuous freeway to east of I-95 begins, though I-74 isn't signed until it gets east of Maxton.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2019, 11:21:20 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 11, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
The alternative would be what was done along US 74 in 2012 when all the exits east of I-95 were given I-74 mileage based numbers and I-74 mileposts were placed along US 74 as far as Delco (which lended support to the idea of the eventual route's end being switched to Wilmington). All new US 74 exits built since then have also been given I-74 numbers. Perhaps it would be something to consider if sections east of I-95 are completed first so not to have exit numbers change twice for someone traveling the corridor from Raleigh to Williamston.
That's interesting, I've always just thought that was US-74 exit numbers. It appears they start as far west as on the Laurinburg Bypass. That's where the continuous freeway to east of I-95 begins, though I-74 isn't signed until it gets east of Maxton.
That's somewhat of a different story. Those exit numbers went up as part of the extension of I-74 along the Bypass when the section from Lumberton to Alma was completed. The FHWA complained the section was not up to interstate standards and NCDOT removed the shields about a year later. NCDOT probably figured it was easier just to leave the exit numbers up since the Bypass will be eventually be upgraded and I-74 re-established along the route. NCDOT has kept the original US 74 exit numbers along the Rockingham Bypass, though most of those will change to I-73 numbers when the western bypass is completed around 2023.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 12, 2019, 08:46:56 PM
Those exit numbers went up as part of the extension of I-74 along the Bypass when the section from Lumberton to Alma was completed. The FHWA complained the section was not up to interstate standards and NCDOT removed the shields about a year later.
Geesh, what's up with NCDOT constantly violating interstate standards? A segment of I-73 / I-74 south of Asheboro still has 4 foot right shoulders! Nobody's complained about that yet.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2019, 10:16:33 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 12, 2019, 08:46:56 PM
Those exit numbers went up as part of the extension of I-74 along the Bypass when the section from Lumberton to Alma was completed. The FHWA complained the section was not up to interstate standards and NCDOT removed the shields about a year later.
Geesh, what's up with NCDOT constantly violating interstate standards? A segment of I-73 / I-74 south of Asheboro still has 4 foot right shoulders! Nobody's complained about that yet.
There has been plenty of discussion about that segment here and on other online forums, and other segments, where THSDOT has posted Interstate signs on substandard highways that don't meet Interstate highway standards. PFTC.
Quote from: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 11:19:14 PM
There has been plenty of discussion about that segment here and on other online forums, and other segments, where THSDOT has posted Interstate signs on substandard highways that don't meet Interstate highway standards. PFTC.
Based on other discussions on here, I think you're thinking of that heavily discussed segment through the center of Asheboro, with the left exit and the link you cited stating a $400 million overhaul is needed.
That segment does have 10 foot paved shoulders nonetheless.
I'm referring to a segment south of Asheboro, that was built as a US-220 relocation the 70s with only 4 foot right and left shoulders. It's a rural segment, not an urban segment like through Asheboro. That segment can easily have shoulders widened to 10 foot to meet standards.
I can't think of instances other than the few discussed on I-73 / I-74 where NCDOT has signed a substandard highway as an interstate. All of the signed interstates throughout the state, with the I-73 / I-74 segment being the exception, meet full interstate highway standards.
Are you aware of any that don't that I'm missing?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2019, 11:39:28 PM
Are you aware of any that don't that I'm missing?
I haven't driven every highway segment so I can't say. But the fact that there are a "few discussed on I-73 / I-74" just by itself makes me wonder how many other places there are.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2019, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 11:19:14 PM
There has been plenty of discussion about that segment here and on other online forums, and other segments, where THSDOT has posted Interstate signs on substandard highways that don't meet Interstate highway standards. PFTC.
I can't think of instances other than the few discussed on I-73 / I-74 where NCDOT has signed a substandard highway as an interstate. All of the signed interstates throughout the state, with the I-73 / I-74 segment being the exception, meet full interstate highway standards.
Are you aware of any that don't that I'm missing?
I-440 between the I-40/US-1 interchange and Wade Avenue, though it will soon change.
https://goo.gl/maps/jBBAdrM6iPV75QAz8 (https://goo.gl/maps/jBBAdrM6iPV75QAz8)
Quote from: LM117 on May 13, 2019, 02:46:26 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2019, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 11:19:14 PM
There has been plenty of discussion about that segment here and on other online forums, and other segments, where THSDOT has posted Interstate signs on substandard highways that don't meet Interstate highway standards. PFTC.
I can't think of instances other than the few discussed on I-73 / I-74 where NCDOT has signed a substandard highway as an interstate. All of the signed interstates throughout the state, with the I-73 / I-74 segment being the exception, meet full interstate highway standards.
Are you aware of any that don't that I'm missing?
I-440 between the I-40/US-1 interchange and Wade Avenue, though it will soon change.
https://goo.gl/maps/jBBAdrM6iPV75QAz8 (https://goo.gl/maps/jBBAdrM6iPV75QAz8)
Ah yeah, that beauty. It makes me wonder why at minimum when they designated it I-440, they didn't at least widen the shoulders to 10 feet?
At least the I-26 segment north of Asheville, which doesn't meet interstate standards, it's only has blue-and-red shields that say "Future 26" instead of "Interstate 26". It provides continuity for thru traffic, but at the same time keeps a substandard part not designated as an interstate.
You'd think the I-73 / I-74 segments could be posted with those "Future 73 / 74" shields instead of "Interstate 73 / 74" if they at least want to allow the designation to float south to the interstate-standard portions near Rockingham instead of no designation at all. Same with I-440. IIRC, the "Future 73 / 74" shields did exist on the Rockingham Bypass until they were removed about 5 years ago.
None of I-87 is being signed until portions are fully upgraded to interstate standards. And hopefully it remains that way. Next thing you'll know, they'll be one substandard piece once most upgrades are completed, and NCDOT will just go ahead and designate it anyways.
(https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/north_carolina026/i-026_wb_exit_024_01.jpg)
"...You'd think the I-73 / I-74 segments could be posted with those "Future 73 / 74" shields instead of "Interstate 73 / 74" if they at least want to allow the designation to float south to the interstate-standard portions near Rockingham instead of no designation at all. Same with I-440. IIRC, the "Future 73 / 74" shields did exist on the Rockingham Bypass until they were removed about 5 years ago."
It used to, but NC was granted a waiver to sign it, that's been done for (5?) years now. No reason to take them down once the waiver is granted. Same happened on the segment between High Point and Winston-Salem, with a promise to widen the shoulders at a later date. (For those wondering if there are other segments in NC that don't have wide enough shoulders still...)
The waiver for I-73/I-74 in the Candor area was granted in 1997 with the promise that the shoulders would be widened. NCDOT had it on their construction schedule for a few years but then moved it to 'Future Years' in the mid 2000s (meaning not funded). When the STIP process was overhauled only to list funded projects about 5 years ago the shoulder widening project reappeared, only to be moved to later dates in subsequent STIPs. The latest Draft 2020-2029 STIP does not list a project for widening but does list a project for pavement rehabilitation in Montgomery County, that like similar projects along the I-42 and I-87 corridors, could include work on shoulder widening, it's suppose to begin in 2022. If so, it would have taken NCDOT 25 years to finally comply with the terms of the waiver.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2019, 06:00:21 PM
The waiver for I-73/I-74 in the Candor area was granted in 1997 with the promise that the shoulders would be widened. NCDOT had it on their construction schedule for a few years but then moved it to 'Future Years' in the mid 2000s (meaning not funded). When the STIP process was overhauled only to list funded projects about 5 years ago the shoulder widening project reappeared, only to be moved to later dates in subsequent STIPs. The latest Draft 2020-2029 STIP does not list a project for widening but does list a project for pavement rehabilitation in Montgomery County, that like similar projects along the I-42 and I-87 corridors, could include work on shoulder widening, it's suppose to begin in 2022. If so, it would have taken NCDOT 25 years to finally comply with the terms of the waiver.
Doubtful. They've done a lot of repaving on these "future interstate corridors", and it simply repaves the mainline travel lanes, not the shoulders or anything else. A lot of US-64 has been repaved in the past year or so and no shoulder widening.
A shoulder widening project isn't just slapping down asphalt and calling it a day. Maybe an arterial shoulder, but an interstate-standard shoulder has to be a lot stronger, and usually requires a full reconstruction on the shoulder area, not just paving.
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 05:07:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. ENC on May 10, 2019, 02:13:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 10:38:28 AM
Beginning next week, the exit numbers on the Knightdale Bypass will be changing to I-87 exit numbers. Work is scheduled to be complete by the end of July. The new exit numbers are listed in the press release.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx)
My problem with this is why didn't they just put I-87 on 440 and end the highway near Cary (or wherever US1/US64 no longer meet Interstate Standards)? It could have been a legitimate push to get this highway running to Columbia SC.
Because there's no local push to extend I-87 along US-1 and even if I-87 does go south of Raleigh, it would end in Rockingham since South Carolina is broke. They can't even get I-73 started. Hell, they can barely maintain what they have.
Even if that is true they should at least run this to I-40 near Cary. Decommission 440, run 87 to Cary, and then the little bit that is left going to 40 in Raleigh should just be called US-64
Maybe get I-87 extended to Rockingham and then west along US 74 to Charlotte. We can get that Charlotte to Wilmington route built even though two or three numbers.
I have always been a fan of I-36 or I-38 for US 74 and kill I-74's number in NC being that WV and OH will never connect the two I-74's.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 10:04:50 AM
Maybe get I-87 extended to Rockingham and then west along US 74 to Charlotte.
Could work. It's the same distance (163 miles) from Raleigh to Charlotte along either I-85 or US-1 to US-64. Obviously the latter is slower now, but if a freeway, would be the same travel time as I-85.
But the question is how do you go into Downtown Charlotte once there? Or do you just terminate at I-485?
Or even better.... renumber I-87 into an east-west interstate, and route it from I-26 to Norfolk via US-74, US-1, US-64, and US-17. This concept, and the one just to Charlotte would be 50 miles slower (well going from I-85 to I-40 to I-87 under the official I-87 proposal today is already 50 miles slower) than the current route (I-85), but each segment would serve it's own use. US-74 would serve it's own use, US-1 serves it's own use, US-64 and US-17 serve their own use. It'd be one designation to upgrade multiple different routes to interstate standards in one stroke.
But I suppose all this is "vanity" because it's not the most direct route possible :-o
Quote from: Mr. ENC on May 14, 2019, 09:18:37 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 05:07:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. ENC on May 10, 2019, 02:13:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 10:38:28 AM
Beginning next week, the exit numbers on the Knightdale Bypass will be changing to I-87 exit numbers. Work is scheduled to be complete by the end of July. The new exit numbers are listed in the press release.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-exit-number-changes-i-87.aspx)
My problem with this is why didn't they just put I-87 on 440 and end the highway near Cary (or wherever US1/US64 no longer meet Interstate Standards)? It could have been a legitimate push to get this highway running to Columbia SC.
Because there's no local push to extend I-87 along US-1 and even if I-87 does go south of Raleigh, it would end in Rockingham since South Carolina is broke. They can't even get I-73 started. Hell, they can barely maintain what they have.
Even if that is true they should at least run this to I-40 near Cary. Decommission 440, run 87 to Cary, and then the little bit that is left going to 40 in Raleigh should just be called US-64
Dreaming up ways to eliminate or avoid concurrences of interstate routes is a common pastime on the forum. But really.
I-440 is the Raleigh beltway and it deserves its beltway-appropriate numbering. As for the short concurrence of I-440 and I-87, it just makes sense to me. Drivers driving through the Raleigh area east-west get a clear connection between I-40 and I-87; drivers circling Raleigh of the beltway get a clear connection of the beltway with I-40. There's nothing wrong with this concurrence.
QuoteKNIGHTDALE, N.C. (WNCN) – A sign of change is going up this week in eastern Wake County.
The road long known as U.S. 64 and 264 is becoming an interstate – and that means the need for new exit signs.
You may have noticed the Interstate 87 signs just outside of Knightdale for the past couple of years.
The corridor will connect Raleigh to coastal Virginia. The next step of progress is the new exit numbers for the road.
Crews will be changing the exit numbers on the road between the Raleigh Beltline and Rolesville Road. The exit numbers will switch from the 400s to the single digits.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/wake-county-news/new-exit-numbers-coming-to-i-87-in-wake-county/1998704003
According to this, and the video on the website, the exit numbers are actually going to get swapped out this week.
I can't make it down there for a few months, but it'd be interesting if anybody in the area could drive up the corridor in the next week or two to see if anything has indeed been updated.
Hopefully by the time I can get down there myself, all of the overhead signs will be finally updated to reflect I-87 shields, exits, etc.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:16:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 10:04:50 AM
Maybe get I-87 extended to Rockingham and then west along US 74 to Charlotte.
Could work. It's the same distance (163 miles) from Raleigh to Charlotte along either I-85 or US-1 to US-64. Obviously the latter is slower now, but if a freeway, would be the same travel time as I-85.
Like when I-74 is completed with I-73 going into SC, that traffic on I-73/I-74 is going to use I-73 into SC rather than head east along US 74? No most I-74 traffic from Rockingham east will be through US 74 traffic heading to Wilmington.
So its different numbers but its the overall freeway concept.
But the question is how do you go into Downtown Charlotte once there? Or do you just terminate at I-485?
Or even better.... renumber I-87 into an east-west interstate, and route it from I-26 to Norfolk via US-74, US-1, US-64, and US-17. This concept, and the one just to Charlotte would be 50 miles slower (well going from I-85 to I-40 to I-87 under the official I-87 proposal today is already 50 miles slower) than the current route (I-85), but each segment would serve it's own use. US-74 would serve it's own use, US-1 serves it's own use, US-64 and US-17 serve their own use. It'd be one designation to upgrade multiple different routes to interstate standards in one stroke.
But I suppose all this is "vanity" because it's not the most direct route possible :-o
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 09:58:14 PM
But I suppose all this is "vanity" because it's not the most direct route possible :-o
It is what it is.
^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder if a form of new-terrain "hypotenuse" between Rocky Mount and Suffolk (VA) were ever considered (avoiding the big ol' swamp) as a potential regional Interstate corridor? Most of it would parallel US 258 and likely make use of parts of the Franklin and Suffolk bypasses -- and, trajectory-wise, wouldn't be too different than the US 64 corridor from Raleigh to I-95. Except for the fact that it wouldn't drag Hampton Roads traffic past the built-up areas along 64, it would provide sufficient NC vs. VA mileage to at least placate the former, while obviating the need for VA to reluctantly agree to upgrade US 58 all the way to Emporia or even I-85.
But as Steve Martin would have said 40 years ago on SNL:
Naaaaaah!
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:16:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 10:04:50 AM
Maybe get I-87 extended to Rockingham and then west along US 74 to Charlotte.
Could work. It's the same distance (163 miles) from Raleigh to Charlotte along either I-85 or US-1 to US-64. Obviously the latter is slower now, but if a freeway, would be the same travel time as I-85.
Like when I-74 is completed with I-73 going into SC, that traffic on I-73/I-74 is going to use I-73 into SC rather than head east along US 74? No most I-74 traffic from Rockingham east will be through US 74 traffic heading to Wilmington.
So its different numbers but its the overall freeway concept.
But the question is how do you go into Downtown Charlotte once there? Or do you just terminate at I-485?
Or even better.... renumber I-87 into an east-west interstate, and route it from I-26 to Norfolk via US-74, US-1, US-64, and US-17. This concept, and the one just to Charlotte would be 50 miles slower (well going from I-85 to I-40 to I-87 under the official I-87 proposal today is already 50 miles slower) than the current route (I-85), but each segment would serve it's own use. US-74 would serve it's own use, US-1 serves it's own use, US-64 and US-17 serve their own use. It'd be one designation to upgrade multiple different routes to interstate standards in one stroke.
I remember seeing an idea with this exact routing in mind, called I-36 (with a starting point at I-26 near Hendersonville)! IIRC, Swamphen (the creator) wanted to run it up as far north as Scranton, PA, but he never got past Norfolk. And the part north of there would just be as stupid anyway because it is more deserving of an odd number, like I-97, I-99, or, dare I say it, I-101.
I, too, wouldn't mind a second Raleigh/Durham-Charlotte interstate corridor, which would offer motorists a route that avoids Greensboro.
Greensboro traffic isn't bad. Unless there's a wreck, it's a breeze. Even Death Valley isn't too bad outside of rush hour. Raleigh, on the other hand...
Quote from: LM117 on May 15, 2019, 10:50:38 AM
Greensboro traffic isn't bad. Unless there's a wreck, it's a breeze. Even Death Valley isn't too bad outside of rush hour. Raleigh, on the other hand...
It isn't getting better with time either.
Is the state planning to bring tolling to the Greensboro/Winston-Salem area?
After my question, let's steer this subject thread back to the present/future Interstate 87 corridor (Raleigh, NC to Norfolk, VA).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 15, 2019, 04:08:47 PM
Is the state planning to bring tolling to the Greensboro/Winston-Salem area?
Not that I'm aware of. The new I-73 north of Greensboro, the I-840 beltway, and the I-74 relocation around Winston-Salem are all major freeway construction projects, though none of them are going to be / are tolled, and no plans to ever toll them. It's all being constructed with public funding.
The only tolls planned in NC are regional HO/T lane proposals, the Mid-Currituck Bridge, and the Cape Fear Crossing in Wilmington. There's only two toll roads, the Triangle Expressway (NC-540 / NC-147) in Raleigh / Durham, and the Monroe Expressway (US-74 Bypass) in Charlotte.
There were plans in the past to toll all of I-95 and widen it to 6 and 8 lanes thruout, but that got scrapped. Instead, I-95 is getting done with public funding, no tolls involved. It's a bit slower of a process, but will definitely pay off in the long run. There was heavy opposition to tolling. Similar to I-81 in Virginia.
I have posted photos of the new I-87 shield and exit number signage recently placed along the southern end of the route at I-40 and heading north and east toward Wendell, courtesy of David Johnson and Ben Thurkill. Here's the first advance for I-87 on I-40 East in Raleigh:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87signsdj519aw.jpg&hash=086ce94465c7b111510d1bda8e0fb4aaf2a15869)
The remainder can be found on my Future I-87 in NC photo gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html#photos (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html#photos)
Work still continues in putting signs and new exit tabs heading back towards Raleigh. The new gore signs will not be put up until next month.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 27, 2019, 12:46:14 PM
I have posted photos of the new I-87 shield and exit number signage recently placed along the southern end of the route at I-40 and heading north and east toward Wendell, courtesy of David Johnson and Ben Thurkill. Here's the first advance for I-87 on I-40 East in Raleigh:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87signsdj519aw.jpg&hash=086ce94465c7b111510d1bda8e0fb4aaf2a15869)
The remainder can be found on my Future I-87 in NC photo gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html#photos (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html#photos)
Work still continues in putting signs and new exit tabs heading back towards Raleigh. The new gore signs will not be put up until next month.
Nice to finally see it getting underway. A couple years late, but better late than never I suppose.
I plan on heading down towards the Raleigh area in the next couple months, so it'll be a nice bonus to see.
It would've been interesting if they also put in "Norfolk" as a control city on the signage. But I suppose they won't do that until the entire US-17 and US-64 corridors are upgraded to interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2019, 08:42:07 PM
It would've been interesting if they also put in "Norfolk" as a control city on the signage. But I suppose they won't do that until the entire US-17 and US-64 corridors are upgraded to interstate standards.
If they planned on doing that, perhaps they'd have left a blank space below Rocky Mount on the sign. Then again, they did remove all mention of Business 85 from the BGSes on I-85 NB south of Lexington without leaving any space for I-285... They also did this (https://goo.gl/maps/N5zxmCDohGrz3dAK9) after they widened US 17/74/76 west of Wilmington without accommodating the planned reroute of US 17.
The Zebulon split would be the ideal spot to use Norfolk as a control city, IMO.
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 28, 2019, 01:04:43 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2019, 08:42:07 PM
It would've been interesting if they also put in "Norfolk" as a control city on the signage. But I suppose they won't do that until the entire US-17 and US-64 corridors are upgraded to interstate standards.
If they planned on doing that, perhaps they'd have left a blank space below Rocky Mount on the sign. Then again, they did remove all mention of Business 85 from the BGSes on I-85 NB south of Lexington without leaving any space for I-285... They also did this (https://goo.gl/maps/N5zxmCDohGrz3dAK9) after they widened US 17/74/76 west of Wilmington without accommodating the planned reroute of US 17.
Didn't stop them from going ahead and listing Martinsville on I-73 in Greensboro lol
Quote from: jcarte29 on May 28, 2019, 08:54:29 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 28, 2019, 01:04:43 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2019, 08:42:07 PM
It would've been interesting if they also put in "Norfolk" as a control city on the signage. But I suppose they won't do that until the entire US-17 and US-64 corridors are upgraded to interstate standards.
If they planned on doing that, perhaps they'd have left a blank space below Rocky Mount on the sign. Then again, they did remove all mention of Business 85 from the BGSes on I-85 NB south of Lexington without leaving any space for I-285... They also did this (https://goo.gl/maps/N5zxmCDohGrz3dAK9) after they widened US 17/74/76 west of Wilmington without accommodating the planned reroute of US 17.
Didn't stop them from going ahead and listing Martinsville on I-73 in Greensboro lol
That's the point I'm trying to make - listing Norfolk would make sense basing on the Martinsville signage. Also, Danville is listed on I-785 signage in Greensboro.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2019, 04:40:30 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on May 28, 2019, 08:54:29 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 28, 2019, 01:04:43 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2019, 08:42:07 PM
It would've been interesting if they also put in "Norfolk" as a control city on the signage. But I suppose they won't do that until the entire US-17 and US-64 corridors are upgraded to interstate standards.
If they planned on doing that, perhaps they'd have left a blank space below Rocky Mount on the sign. Then again, they did remove all mention of Business 85 from the BGSes on I-85 NB south of Lexington without leaving any space for I-285... They also did this (https://goo.gl/maps/N5zxmCDohGrz3dAK9) after they widened US 17/74/76 west of Wilmington without accommodating the planned reroute of US 17.
Didn't stop them from going ahead and listing Martinsville on I-73 in Greensboro lol
That's the point I'm trying to make - listing Norfolk would make sense basing on the Martinsville signage. Also, Danville is listed on I-785 signage in Greensboro.
Norfolk is a long way from Raleigh; Martinsville is pretty close to Greensboro and Danville is pretty close to Greensboro. I'm sure these facts mean something in these decisions.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 28, 2019, 06:29:29 PM
Norfolk is a long way from Raleigh; Martinsville is pretty close to Greensboro and Danville is pretty close to Greensboro. I'm sure these facts mean something in these decisions.
They posted "Wilmington" signage on the new Monroe Expressway up by I-485 which is 185 miles away from Wilmington.
The distance between the southern terminus of I-87 and Norfolk is roughly 190 miles, following US-64 / US-17 mileage.
It would be the same thing essentially.
Maybe it makes sense though not to have continuous "Norfolk" as a control city for the entire route, the repetition should start around US-17 / Williamston, where it's about 100 miles away. IMO though, I think mentioning "Norfolk" at least once at the southern terminus would make sense, same with signage on both I-87 and I-95 at the I-87 / I-95 interchange as a reminder for long-distance traffic. But everywhere else south (or rather west) of Williamston should mostly be the existing control cities, with just those exceptions. North of Williamston though, Norfolk and Elizabeth City should dominate most signage.
There was a Martinsville and Roanoke sign in Greensboro long before I73 came along.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 28, 2019, 07:32:47 PM
There was a Martinsville and Roanoke sign in Greensboro long before I73 came along.
The point is there was no interstate connections leading north out of Greensboro, so there was minimal signage. Now, you drive anywhere through there and you see "Danville" and "Martinsville" control city signage all over whenever I-73 or I-795 are mentioned, which is in a lot of places in the area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2019, 04:40:30 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on May 28, 2019, 08:54:29 AM
Didn't stop them from going ahead and listing Martinsville on I-73 in Greensboro lol
That's the point I'm trying to make - listing Norfolk would make sense basing on the Martinsville signage. Also, Danville is listed on I-785 signage in Greensboro.
Norfolk would make no sense for at least 25 years, assuming that this boondoggle gets built, and assuming that someone is dumb enough to want to add 20 unnecessary miles to the trip.
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:10:06 PM
Norfolk would make no sense for at least 25 years, assuming that this boondoggle gets built, and assuming that someone is dumb enough to want to add 20 unnecessary miles to the trip.
Do you really gotta keep throwing your two cents in about your hatred of this highway?
We get it dude, it's nothing new. It's a boondoggle, it's longer, yeah, yeah. We have at least 25 pages of this thread dedicated to that. We don't need any more. Just because you hate this highway and it doesn't meet your standards that NCDOT wants to construct an interstate to link Northeastern NC to Raleigh to Norfolk via an -interstate highway- (don't pull out your 4-lane arterial highway card), doesn't mean the entire thread needs to be filled with that.
If you wanna talk boondoggle, check out FritzOwl - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19108.2075
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2019, 09:34:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:10:06 PM
Norfolk would make no sense for at least 25 years, assuming that this boondoggle gets built, and assuming that someone is dumb enough to want to add 20 unnecessary miles to the trip.
Do you really gotta keep throwing your two cents in about your hatred of this highway?
Do you have anything to offer other than trying to personalize the discussion?
And FYI my direct and indirect comments are directed toward the organizations that are promoting it.
US-89 is on the other side of the country, not on my radar.
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:57:02 PM
Do you have anything to offer other than trying to personalize the discussion?
I've offered more to this discussion than your "vanity interstate" comments that are predictable, repetitive, and never ending.
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:57:02 PM
And FYI my direct and indirect comments are directed toward the organizations that are promoting it.
I think you're on the wrong place then, there's no organization here trying to promote the concept. And what concept are we referring to? The goal to connect Eastern NC to Norfolk and Raleigh via an interstate highway?
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:57:02 PM
US-89 is on the other side of the country, not on my radar.
He's got crazy and ridiculous plans for interstates all over the country. His Virginia & Northeast plans may intrigue you.
They're scattered throughout the thread, but here's what appears to be his latest Virginia plan - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19108.1600
It's an improvement to before I must say, before he routed an interstate down the Outer Banks from VA Beach to Hatteras.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2019, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:57:02 PM
Do you have anything to offer other than trying to personalize the discussion?
I've offered more to this discussion than your "vanity interstate" comments that are predictable, repetitive, and never ending.
I have offered many pages of in-depth analysis and design recommendations for the various routes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2019, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:57:02 PM
And FYI my direct and indirect comments are directed toward the organizations that are promoting it.
I think you're on the wrong place then, there's no organization here trying to promote the concept. And what concept are we referring to? The goal to connect Eastern NC to Norfolk and Raleigh via an interstate highway?
This is a discussion board, with many opinions and many analytical solutions been proposed.
It is also easy to find for anyone doing an Internet search on various topics, and you don't have to be a member to read most of the threads, including this one.
Lurker to poster ratios on Internet groups is usually 10 to 1, sometimes more.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2019, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:57:02 PM
US-89 is on the other side of the country, not on my radar.
He's got crazy and ridiculous plans for interstates all over the country. His Virginia & Northeast plans may intrigue you.
I don't have time to read more than about 10 topical boards. I hadn't yet encountered him.
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 10:30:46 PM
I have offered many pages of in-depth analysis and design recommendations for the various routes.
That is a fair point. I think focusing more on that aspect of the interstate, and some of the other discussions that have occurred related to signage, upgrades, etc. leads to more healthy conversations, that can actually get somewhere, and should be more what's on here. Debate is okay too, but not when it's 20+ pages of the same thing, and when it spreads onto other threads as well at the slightest mention of I-87.
I don't think at this point anybody in North Carolina plans on backing down from the concept of an interstate linking Eastern NC to Hampton Roads and Raleigh, and now everything is looking forward on how to make it reality. Maybe the wording of "linking Norfolk to Raleigh" is the wrong wording, but I really haven't heard that as the talking point for I-87 that much, other than on this forum. It's about providing an interstate highway to Eastern NC mostly, and upgrading a significant stretch of US-17 which is a major trucking route with 13 - 15% trucks, which is comparable to other nearby interstates such as I-40 and I-95.
If it's just the same 5 arguments you want to make, I can't control what you post obviously, but maybe just ignore the highway & this thread all together then? If anyone wants to see them, there's 20+ pages of it on previous pages. It's not anything groundbreaking or new. If it's something constructive or actually relevant to the progress of I-87, or concepts & ideas (I'm referring to upgrades to the road itself, not I-87 should be canceled and it's vanity), those are the type of posts that really belong here.
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 10:30:46 PM
I don't have time to read more than about 10 topical boards. I hadn't yet encountered him.
You should consider taking a look through when you have time. If you think I-87 is vanity, you're in for a real treat.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2019, 10:41:07 PM
If it's just the same 5 arguments you want to make, I can't control what you post obviously, but maybe just ignore the highway & this thread all together then?
You can do better than reacting with these with streams of personal abuse, that occur when someone questions your worldview, where you just can't bear having your opinions questioned, and having to reassess your ideology.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 28, 2019, 06:29:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2019, 04:40:30 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on May 28, 2019, 08:54:29 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 28, 2019, 01:04:43 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2019, 08:42:07 PM
It would've been interesting if they also put in "Norfolk" as a control city on the signage. But I suppose they won't do that until the entire US-17 and US-64 corridors are upgraded to interstate standards.
If they planned on doing that, perhaps they'd have left a blank space below Rocky Mount on the sign. Then again, they did remove all mention of Business 85 from the BGSes on I-85 NB south of Lexington without leaving any space for I-285... They also did this (https://goo.gl/maps/N5zxmCDohGrz3dAK9) after they widened US 17/74/76 west of Wilmington without accommodating the planned reroute of US 17.
Didn't stop them from going ahead and listing Martinsville on I-73 in Greensboro lol
That's the point I'm trying to make - listing Norfolk would make sense basing on the Martinsville signage. Also, Danville is listed on I-785 signage in Greensboro.
Norfolk is a long way from Raleigh; Martinsville is pretty close to Greensboro and Danville is pretty close to Greensboro. I'm sure these facts mean something in these decisions.
That and US 220 and 29 both directly go to Martinsville and Danville, respectively. I-73 feeds straight into US 220, and while I-785 effectively ends
at US 29 rather than
on it, Danville is signed for US 29 NB there.
With I-87, not only is it much further from Raleigh to Norfolk, but you need to change routes from US 64 to US 17. (Granted, the physical road mainline follows this movement.)
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2019, 10:41:07 PM
It's about providing an interstate highway to Eastern NC mostly, and upgrading a significant stretch of US-17 which is a major trucking route with 13 - 15% trucks, which is comparable to other nearby interstates such as I-40 and I-95.
That percentage is out of much higher AADTs on I-40 and I-95, meaning a much higher number of total trucks, and given the high volumes of local car traffic on I-40 and I-95, that is really significant that truck percentages are that high on I-40 and I-95; subtract the local car numbers and the truck percentages might be in the 30-40% range.
Besides, in my travels on that part of US-17, I find it hard to believe that the true figure is anywhere near that.
Here is one of your points that I have not addressed before, BTW.
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 01:36:27 AM
and given the high volumes of local car traffic on I-40 and I-95, that is really significant that truck percentages are that high on I-40 and I-95; subtract the local car numbers and the truck percentages might be in the 30-40% range.
Those rural stretches have few local car traffic. Especially when you consider a highway like I-40 that has interchanges miles apart from each other, and US-117 as a local road linking the towns. Hard to say there's "high volumes of local car traffic" . Local traffic is far more likely to simply take 55mph rural US-117 between towns rather than go over to I-40, get off, then go back, just to have a 70mph ride.
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 01:36:27 AM
Besides, in my travels on that part of US-17, I find it hard to believe that the true figure is anywhere near that.
When's the last time you've driven on the 80 mile stretch between Virginia and Williamston? I've traveled down that way quite a few times in the past year, and there's usually a significant amount of trucks on that route at any given time. A lot of port-bound traffic as well. It's very well present even down a trip on US-17 in Chesapeake. Look down the corridor on Street View, it's quite present. Maybe not as high as US-58, but it's certainly a trucking corridor, compared to something like VA/NC-168.
So when the numbers and facts go against your argument, you then deny it. But when they support your arguments, like along I-40 or I-95, not only do you accept them, you claim they should be higher because there's a large amount of local traffic on a rural interstate, which there's no facts or numbers to back up that claim.
Not trying to get into -personal attacks- as that's not my intention, but I'm going to call that out.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 29, 2019, 07:36:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 01:36:27 AM
and given the high volumes of local car traffic on I-40 and I-95, that is really significant that truck percentages are that high on I-40 and I-95; subtract the local car numbers and the truck percentages might be in the 30-40% range.
Those rural stretches have few local car traffic. Especially when you consider a highway like I-40 that has interchanges miles apart from each other, and US-117 as a local road linking the towns. Hard to say there's "high volumes of local car traffic" . Local traffic is far more likely to simply take 55mph rural US-117 between towns rather than go over to I-40, get off, then go back, just to have a 70mph ride.
NC I-95 has considerable local car traffic nearly the whole distance.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 29, 2019, 07:36:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 01:36:27 AM
Besides, in my travels on that part of US-17, I find it hard to believe that the true figure is anywhere near that.
When's the last time you've driven on the 80 mile stretch between Virginia and Williamston? I've traveled down that way quite a few times in the past year, and there's usually a significant amount of trucks on that route at any given time. A lot of port-bound traffic as well. It's very well present even down a trip on US-17 in Chesapeake. Look down the corridor on Street View, it's quite present. Maybe not as high as US-58, but it's certainly a trucking corridor, compared to something like VA/NC-168.
So when the numbers and facts go against your argument, you then deny it. But when they support your arguments, like along I-40 or I-95, not only do you accept them, you claim they should be higher because there's a large amount of local traffic on a rural interstate, which there's no facts or numbers to back up that claim.
NC I-95 has lots of visible towns and cities and adjacent development along nearly all of the corridor. High truck traffic is quite visible. Traffic is high enough that rolling backups can happen in peak periods.
That part of US-17 does not have those characteristics or has a fraction of that, leading to questions about the "data" that was offered up.
Quote from: LM117 on May 28, 2019, 01:25:27 AM
The Zebulon split would be the ideal spot to use Norfolk as a control city, IMO.
The I-95 crossing would be the ideal spot. With an auxiliary sign stating Norfolk use I-95 north to US 58 east.
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 07:55:28 AM
NC I-95 has considerable local car traffic nearly the whole distance.
NC I-95 has lots of visible towns and cities and adjacent development along nearly all of the corridor. High truck traffic is quite visible. Traffic is high enough that rolling backups can happen in peak periods.
I was referring to I-40 between I-95 and Wilmington. Completely different story.
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 07:55:28 AM
That part of US-17 does not have those characteristics or has a fraction of that, leading to questions about the "data" that was offered up.
A majority of that traffic is long-distance, and there is some local traffic between the towns, which is understandable in this case, and will continue to be once I-87 is constructed through the area.
There are a significant amount of port trucks that use the route, along with other commercial trucks that use US-17 on a daily basis. It's hard to not pass at least 5 - 7 in the opposite direction of them going down a 10 mile stretch, same with the VA US-17 section. There's a good deal of truck and car traffic (about 14,000 AADT, with 10 - 13% truck traffic) between Elizabeth City and Hampton Roads as well, the first segment NC wishes to upgrade of US-17, and if plans to develop that corridor are brought forth in the next 20 years, that could increase significantly. It's already limited-access, and has always been slated to be upgraded to freeway, even before I-87 was a thing. It was discussed as a freeway back when the 80s realignments & widening were being studied in the 70s.
Quote from: NE2 on May 29, 2019, 01:40:22 PM
With an auxiliary sign stating Norfolk use I-95 north to US 58 east.
I'll be sure to post on here once they put up that sign. Might be a while :wow:
Maybe by the time they post it, you'll actually offer something productive on this thread.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 29, 2019, 05:11:49 PM
There are a significant amount of port trucks that use the route, along with other commercial trucks that use US-17 on a daily basis. It's hard to not pass at least 5 - 7 in the opposite direction of them going down a 10 mile stretch, same with the VA US-17 section. There's a good deal of truck and car traffic (about 14,000 AADT, with 10 - 13% truck traffic) between Elizabeth City and Hampton Roads as well,
When are the GMSV photos taken? I looked at that section between the Elizabeth City and the state line, and I see 3 large trucks and probably well over 100 cars.
VDOT's 2018 traffic data came out. They have US 17 at the state line as a 14,000 AADT and 6% trucks (so roughly 840).
NCDOT traffic data from 2017 rounds to a 13,000 AADT with 1,220 trucks a day (rounds to about 9% of AADT), though they specifically list 680 multi-unit trucks (i.e. tractor trailers) a day. The remainder are single-unit trucks.
Quote from: froggie on May 30, 2019, 08:29:01 AM
VDOT's 2018 traffic data came out. They have US 17 at the state line as a 14,000 AADT and 6% trucks (so roughly 840).
NCDOT traffic data from 2017 rounds to a 13,000 AADT with 1,220 trucks a day (rounds to about 9% of AADT), though they specifically list 680 multi-unit trucks (i.e. tractor trailers) a day. The remainder are single-unit trucks.
VDOT --
US 00017 US 17 George Washington Hwy 131 City of Chesapeake 131 City of Chesapeake 3.58 North Carolina State Line 131-8796 Ballahack Rd 14000 A 94% 0% 1% 1% 5% 0% C 0.1026 A 0.7185 14000 A 2018
Red figures --
Percent 2 and 4 Tire Vehicles Percent Busses Percent Single Unit Trucks 2 Axle Percent Single Unit Trucks 3+ Axle Percent Combination Trucks 1 Trailer Percent Combination Trucks 2+ Trailer
. . . . . . . .
So 5% tractor-trailers, which are the ones that count for major freight movements.
The NCDOT figures quoted above would be 5.2% tractor-trailers.
That sounds right based on admittingly unscientific eyeball observations.
That is low for a 4-lane rural arterial highway. 10% is more standard for that type of highway, and 20% for a rural Interstate highway.
Beltway vs. sprjus 4 argument is back! :biggrin:.
Will you two kindly put your differences and try to get along and have a honest discussion? :popcorn:
Quote from: LM117 on May 15, 2019, 10:50:38 AM
Greensboro traffic isn't bad. Unless there's a wreck, it's a breeze. Even Death Valley isn't too bad outside of rush hour. Raleigh, on the other hand...
This is true, but a lot of it is because Greensboro probably has the best road system in the state. There is 4 blvd in Greensboro that are quasi Limited access freeways (half of Wendover, O Herny Blvd, Bryan Blvd, and Benjamin Parkway). Greensboro also has the bulk of their main roads at least 3 lanes wide, and that before all the interstates that go through that place. Literally, the only traffic I've ever seen in Greensboro is Gate City Blvd between Four seasons and UNCG (still Lee st. to me)
Quote from: Mr. ENC on May 30, 2019, 02:14:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 15, 2019, 10:50:38 AM
Greensboro traffic isn't bad. Unless there's a wreck, it's a breeze. Even Death Valley isn't too bad outside of rush hour. Raleigh, on the other hand...
This is true, but a lot of it is because Greensboro probably has the best road system in the state. There is 4 blvd in Greensboro that are quasi Limited access freeways (half of Wendover, O Herny Blvd, Bryan Blvd, and Benjamin Parkway). Greensboro also has the bulk of their main roads at least 3 lanes wide, and that before all the interstates that go through that place. Literally, the only traffic I've ever seen in Greensboro is Gate City Blvd between Four seasons and UNCG (still Lee st. to me)
And Gate City will always be High Point Rd to me lol
Quote from: Strider on May 30, 2019, 01:18:41 PM
Beltway vs. sprjus 4 argument is back!
Will you two kindly put your differences and try to get along and have a honest discussion?
My 'argument' -is- honest, and it is not with Sprjus4, it is with the proposed highway project.
Quote from: Mr. ENC on May 30, 2019, 02:14:39 PM
This is true, but a lot of it is because Greensboro probably has the best road system in the state. There is 4 blvd in Greensboro that are quasi Limited access freeways (half of Wendover, O Herny Blvd, Bryan Blvd, and Benjamin Parkway). Greensboro also has the bulk of their main roads at least 3 lanes wide, and that before all the interstates that go through that place. Literally, the only traffic I've ever seen in Greensboro is Gate City Blvd between Four seasons and UNCG (still Lee st. to me)
Greensboro metro has no water obstacles to speak of, that makes things quite a bit easier for road building and maintenance.
Quote from: Beltway on May 30, 2019, 04:37:22 PM
it is with the proposed highway project.
The fact NCDOT wants to upgrade 80 miles of US-17 to interstate standards to link Eastern NC to Norfolk, Raleigh & I-95 South? What's the issue if NCDOT wants to upgrade -their- highway to benefit -their- counties & cities up that way?
It's quite obvious they're not dropping I-87 at this point just because a few posters on a road forum oppose the project because "it's not the most direct route through Virginia (which VDOT would never build anyways)" or "the towns are way to small to warrant an interstate". I could say the same for a lot of rural interstate highways. Oh, but those are "long-distance" routes. Couldn't the same be said for US-17? It can be long-distance highway, and may become more attractive of a route for more traffic once I-87 is completed for traffic bound to Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, etc. as opposed to heading inland to I-95. And what if they decide to upgrade US-17 even farther south of Williamston? It's all vanity, right? Progress is continuing on this highway. They just put new I-87 signs up in Raleigh this past week, and there's long-range plans to get the entire route completed by 2040.
What's going to happen if this actually is built over the next 20 years and it gets done? Is it the argument then going to be "oh, it was overbuilt, the four-lane highway was fine"? Just like the current argument, it's going to get overlooked really quick.
Couldn't you argue other highways in NC are also overbuilt? Four-lane freeways not carrying much volumes, etc. But I'm sure some excuse will be drafted together that will somehow make those highways acceptable, but I-87 is complete vanity.
Ahh... I just don't see the issue with NCDOT building it, signing it, and hey if you hate, avoid it. Is overbuilding something bad? You argued I-81 was over-built because it had 4-lanes as opposed to 2-lanes in the past, and while it didn't warrant it then, it clearly does now. You don't how that area will look 10-15 years after I-87 is built. It could become a booming region. It could fail. Who knows. But it's a big opportunity, and it's one NCDOT and Eastern NC is willing to try to grow the area.
Look at Wilmington, NC. It had a population of 30,000 - 50,000 between 1920 - 1990. Once I-40 was built down that way, the population had a rapid increase, and that area exploded. It now has a population of 120,000, a 140% increase. Clearly the interstate had some impact. The cities & counties between New Bern and Morehead City on the I-42 corridor have high hopes the same will happen there, and the same could happen to Northeastern NC, especially around Camden County and Elizabeth City, which are growing areas. Elizabeth City has a population of 20,000, and by 2050 could be up to 60,000, and their could be extensive suburban development up the built-out I-87 corridor leading into Virginia, and the population way higher than today.
Nobody knows, just because it's "not warranted" today, it could bring a lot of potential 10-20 years after it's built, and rapidly change the area.
But I guess it's "vanity" and "baloney" because it's not needed -today-, and that are will -never- grow, and if they want to take a shot, nope, because some posters on a roads forum oppose it. Clearly nothing on this forum has swayed any decisions about I-87, and it's highly unlikely it will ever.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 30, 2019, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 30, 2019, 04:37:22 PM
it is with the proposed highway project.
The fact NCDOT wants to upgrade 80 miles of US-17 to interstate standards to link Eastern NC to Norfolk, Raleigh & I-95 South? What's the issue if NCDOT wants to upgrade -their- highway to benefit -their- counties & cities up that way?
Energy creature.
NCDOT has moved back the letting of 2 pavement rehabilitation projects in Martin County that would bring the shoulders of US 64 to interstate standards for I-87 from this September to March 2020 because of 'strategic letting'. Other new changes to the letting dates of STIP projects can be found in the June changes report:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/JUNE%202019%20CHANGES%20REPORT.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/JUNE%202019%20CHANGES%20REPORT.pdf)
Quote from: bob7374 on May 31, 2019, 12:46:56 PM
NCDOT has moved back the letting of 2 pavement rehabilitation projects in Martin County that would bring the shoulders of US 64 to interstate standards for I-87 from this September to March 2020 because of 'strategic letting'. Other new changes to the letting dates of STIP projects can be found in the June changes report:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/JUNE%202019%20CHANGES%20REPORT.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/JUNE%202019%20CHANGES%20REPORT.pdf)
I think that stretch is a mere resurfacing. None of the "pavement rehabilitation" projects actually involve widening the shoulders. It simply repaves the mainline lanes. Other stretches of US-64 were recently repaved, and no shoulder was added. And this was after I-87 was announced.
Either way though, that stretch you mentioned above was built in the late 90s, and already meets interstate standards, having 12 foot lanes, and 10 foot paved shoulders. All of US-64 east of Tarboro (all built 1996 - 2004) meets interstate standards (where this stretch is), whereas the stretch west of there (built in the 70s & 80s) only have 4 foot shoulders, going all the way to Raleigh.
The project near New Bern happening on US-70 right now is another story, that project is actually specifically designed to widen the shoulders, and bring that stretch to interstate standards.
EDIT - Actually, I could be mistaken. A project on US-264 to resurface also is including widening the shoulders to meet interstate standards per NCDOT, similar to the current project on I-42 near New Bern. But still, the stretch that was delayed until 2020 already meets interstate standards, it's those rural stretches west of Tarboro that actually need it. Raleigh to I-95 should be the first stretch of US-64 actually designated as I-87, then continuing east to US-17 and Virginia after that.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on June 19, 2019, 04:18:16 PM
For those of you that want to see some random guy's plans for I-87, here you go. :spin:
I-885 is going to handle parts of that area so I'm sure that's not going to happen. Maybe when 70 gets complete in the Durham area but the maps show that it's going to be built as an "expressway design".
"http://rsbodnar.tripod.com/I-54_proposal.gif"
Don't let Beltway see this :hmm:
I think you should post these new routing idea concepts in the Fictional Highways forum, not on these. The Fictional Highways forum is meant for things like this, while these threads are meant to actually be related to the actual interstate itself, and real proposals and plans, not fictional concepts.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 04:24:27 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on June 19, 2019, 04:18:16 PM
For those of you that want to see some random guy's plans for I-87, here you go. :spin:
I-885 is going to handle parts of that area so I'm sure that's not going to happen. Maybe when 70 gets complete in the Durham area but the maps show that it's going to be built as an "expressway design".
"http://rsbodnar.tripod.com/I-54_proposal.gif"
Don't let Beltway see this :hmm:
I think you should post these new routing idea concepts in the Fictional Highways forum, not on these. The Fictional Highways forum is meant for things like this, while these threads are meant to actually be related to the actual interstate itself, and real proposals and plans, not fictional concepts.
Alright
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 04:24:27 PM
Don't let Beltway see this :hmm:
I can see that you are pretty angry about something ... :banghead:
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 04:24:27 PM
Don't let Beltway see this :hmm:
I can see that you are pretty angry about something ... :banghead:
Pot, kettle
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 04:24:27 PM
Don't let Beltway see this :hmm:
I can see that you are pretty angry about something ... :banghead:
Your heavy opposition to the I-87 proposal speaks the same. Most people against the concept aren't as heavily invested as you are in "tearing" apart the proposal. Based on how you've "torn" apart the feasibility study with no actual facts backing it, I can't imagine how you'll get once the NEPA process begins.
I think you're the one pretty angry about something... :poke:
Quote from: Alps on June 20, 2019, 09:25:57 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 04:24:27 PM
Don't let Beltway see this :hmm:
I can see that you are pretty angry about something ...
Pot, kettle
Back at you. He's following me around, making all kinds of angry comments, all because I criticized his precious VI-87. The gratuitous unprovoked comment above. Now trying to start arguments about whether a lane is 11 feet or 12 feet. Coming up with strategies to defend his avatar highway.
How about the one where he culled my past comments and found that I was an inspector on the upgrade projects in southside Virginia to make the 4-lane US-301 into I-95, saying how can you support that and not support making a 4-lane corridor into VI-87? Logical fallacy city.
You seem to think that his flatulence is odorless and noiseless, and that when he vomits that pixie dust comes out and smells like roses.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:02:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 20, 2019, 09:25:57 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 04:24:27 PM
Don't let Beltway see this :hmm:
I can see that you are pretty angry about something ...
Pot, kettle
Back at you. He's following me around, making all kinds of angry comments, all because I criticized his precious VI-87. The gratuitous unprovoked comment above. Now trying to start arguments about whether a lane is 11 feet or 12 feet. Coming up with strategies to defend his avatar highway.
How about the one where he culled my past comments and found that I was an inspector on the upgrade projects in southside Virginia to make the 4-lane US-301 into I-95, saying how can you support that and not support making a 4-lane corridor into VI-87? Logical fallacy city.
You seem to think that his flatulence is odorless and noiseless, and that when he vomits that pixie dust comes out and smells like roses.
I think you're getting pretty angry about something...
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 11:10:05 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:02:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 20, 2019, 09:25:57 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 04:24:27 PM
Don't let Beltway see this :hmm:
I can see that you are pretty angry about something ...
Pot, kettle
Back at you. He's following me around, making all kinds of angry comments, all because I criticized his precious VI-87. The gratuitous unprovoked comment above. Now trying to start arguments about whether a lane is 11 feet or 12 feet. Coming up with strategies to defend his avatar highway.
How about the one where he culled my past comments and found that I was an inspector on the upgrade projects in southside Virginia to make the 4-lane US-301 into I-95, saying how can you support that and not support making a 4-lane corridor into VI-87? Logical fallacy city.
You seem to think that his flatulence is odorless and noiseless, and that when he vomits that pixie dust comes out and smells like roses.
I think you're getting pretty angry about something...
You need to discuss this with your psychiatrist when you meet with him this week.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:19:09 AM
You need to discuss this with your psychiatrist when you meet with him this week.
Why would you need to see a psychiatrist every week? You'd be much more likely to visit a therapist or psychologist.
Quote from: NE2 on June 20, 2019, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:19:09 AM
You need to discuss this with your psychiatrist when you meet with him this week.
Why would you need to see a psychiatrist every week? You'd be much more likely to visit a therapist or psychologist.
So are you saying that a psychiatrist wouldn't provide psychotherapy for a patient on a weekly basis?
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 02:18:42 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 20, 2019, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:19:09 AM
You need to discuss this with your psychiatrist when you meet with him this week.
Why would you need to see a psychiatrist every week? You'd be much more likely to visit a therapist or psychologist.
So are you saying that a psychiatrist wouldn't provide psychotherapy for a patient on a weekly basis?
A therapist would be much more likely to provide therapy.
Quote from: NE2 on June 20, 2019, 02:21:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 02:18:42 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 20, 2019, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:19:09 AM
You need to discuss this with your psychiatrist when you meet with him this week.
Why would you need to see a psychiatrist every week? You'd be much more likely to visit a therapist or psychologist.
So are you saying that a psychiatrist wouldn't provide psychotherapy for a patient on a weekly basis?
A therapist would be much more likely to provide therapy.
Is this an accurate description?
A psychiatrist is a physician who specializes in psychiatry, the branch of medicine devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study, and treatment of mental disorders. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, unlike psychologists, and must evaluate patients to determine whether their symptoms are the result of a physical illness, a combination of physical and mental ailments, or strictly psychiatric. A psychiatrist usually works as the clinical leader of the multi-disciplinary team, which may comprise psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists and nursing staff. Psychiatrists have broad training in a bio-psycho-social approach to assessment and management of mental illness.
As part of the clinical assessment process, psychiatrists may employ a mental status examination; a physical examination; brain imaging such as a computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET) scan; and blood testing. Psychiatrists prescribe medicine, and may also use psychotherapy, although the vast majority do medical management and refer to a psychologist or other specialized therapist for weekly to bi-monthly psychotherapy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatrist
Maybe we all could use some therapy. In the meantime, let's get back to discussing North Carolina's Interstate 87.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:02:22 AM
He's following me around, making all kinds of angry comments, all because I criticized his precious VI-87.
I-87 comments aren't even the reason I disagree with you on issues... each subject is independent, most don't relate to I-87 to begin with, and I may throw in a joke here and there, but I don't "disagree or make angry comments" on issues you support just because of the I-87 disagreement.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 20, 2019, 04:43:21 PM
Maybe we all could use some therapy. In the meantime, let's get back to discussing North Carolina's Interstate 87.
Happily. A perusal of NCDOT traffic cameras this morning shows they have placed the new exit number gore signs along the Knightdale Bypass, or at least at New Hope Road and I-540 heading North/East.
I have added photos taken along I-87 South courtesy of David Johnson showing the near completion of the sign replacement project along the US 64/264 Knightdale Bypass, which includes new pull throughs at the I-440 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi87signsdj619ww.jpg&hash=07781743f3850f46300d5730b130f6f76c922bff)
The rest of the photos are towards the bottom of the Future I-87 in NC webpage:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html#photos (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html#photos)
Quote from: bob7374 on June 25, 2019, 12:00:12 AM
I have added photos taken along I-87 South courtesy of David Johnson showing the near completion of the sign replacement project along the US 64/264 Knightdale Bypass, which includes new pull throughs at the I-440 exit:
The rest of the photos are towards the bottom of the Future I-87 in NC webpage:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html#photos (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html#photos)
Nice! Hopefully Google Maps will update the exit numbers now that they've all been changed. Waze has already had them updated for a little while now.
Those mile markers on your website are an older design indeed... weird to see them being used new. At least they updated the mile markers to begin with - I was expecting them to leave the old ones.
It seems that stretch has now been fully changed to I-87 - New signage, new mile markers, new exit numbers, etc. I'm assuming signage at all of the interchanges has also been changed finally. The next phase now is to widen US-64 / US-264 to 6-lanes between I-87 and the split, then extend the designation north (east) to the split assuming that stretch is being designed to meet interstate standards with full left and right shoulders.
I was talking to my boss, a longtime resident of Raleigh, about all the road work done around there over the years. He said no one understands why they keep changing the highway numbers every 10 years or so. Up until recently, BGSs on I-40 were confusing and inconsistent due to all the number shuffling. Route shields would be removed from one sign and just slapped up on another wherever they fit. I-440 was still sparsely signed along 40 even though it technically wasn't. US 64 shields could still be found along Western Blvd since it has been removed, added back, and re-removed. Despite becoming I-495 and now I-87, locals still call it "64" or the Knightdale bypass. Its also a running joke that this strange new I-87 doesn't go anywhere.
Quote from: fillup420 on June 28, 2019, 07:42:19 AM
Its also a running joke that this strange new I-87 doesn't go anywhere.
That's how new interstate highways work. It was the same way when they were popping up in the 50s and 60s. They ran short courses. Once it's completed, it will run a slightly indirect path between Raleigh and the Virginia state line on US-17 north of Elizabeth City, and if Virginia chooses to pursue an extension to Hampton Roads, all the way to I-64 / I-464 / VA-168.
But I get the joke. It terminates after 13 miles. Another 10 miles will be added once US-64 is expanded to 6-lanes all the way to the US-264 split. Once the US-64 freeway beyond there is given wider shoulders, and in some areas full reconstruction with new bridges, etc, I-87 will run from Raleigh to Williamston. And then further once US-17 is upgraded to the Virginia state line.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2019, 09:00:38 AM
Quote from: fillup420 on June 28, 2019, 07:42:19 AM
Its also a running joke that this strange new I-87 doesn't go anywhere.
That's how new interstate highways work. It was the same way when they were popping up in the 50s and 60s. They ran short courses. Once it's completed, it will run a slightly indirect path between Raleigh and the Virginia state line on US-17 north of Elizabeth City, and if Virginia chooses to pursue an extension to Hampton Roads, all the way to I-64 / I-464 / VA-168.
But I get the joke. It terminates after 13 miles. Another 10 miles will be added once US-64 is expanded to 6-lanes all the way to the US-264 split. Once the US-64 freeway beyond there is given wider shoulders, and in some areas full reconstruction with new bridges, etc, I-87 will run from Raleigh to Williamston. And then further once US-17 is upgraded to the Virginia state line.
Realizing it was only a temporary placeholder in hindsight, I-495, to me, was the running joke lol.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2019, 09:00:38 AM
Quote from: fillup420 on June 28, 2019, 07:42:19 AM
Its also a running joke that this strange new I-87 doesn't go anywhere.
That's how new interstate highways work. It was the same way when they were popping up in the 50s and 60s. They ran short courses.
No, it was very different. They were building a national network that was well funded and were opening new highways in 30 and 50 mile segments all over the country. 70% of a 42,500 mile system was opened by 1970.
The 320 miles of PA I-80 was entirely completed in 1970, just to give one example of many. The 325 miles of VA I-81 was 90% completed by 1968.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2019, 09:00:38 AM
Once it's completed, it will run a slightly indirect path between Raleigh and the Virginia state line on US-17 north of Elizabeth City, and if Virginia chooses to pursue an extension to Hampton Roads, all the way to I-64 / I-464 / VA-168.
Not "slightly indirect", but enough so that it cannot/willnot be considered a connector between Raleigh and Norfolk (sorry roadgeeks).
IF Virginia decides to build I-87 and route it over Dominion Blvd, would the bridge still be tolled?
Speaking of Dominion, I see Street View is now updated the whole length. I just want to say much of the signage there SUCKS.
Quote from: fillup420 on June 28, 2019, 07:42:19 AM
I was talking to my boss, a longtime resident of Raleigh, about all the road work done around there over the years. He said no one understands why they keep changing the highway numbers every 10 years or so. Up until recently, BGSs on I-40 were confusing and inconsistent due to all the number shuffling. Route shields would be removed from one sign and just slapped up on another wherever they fit. I-440 was still sparsely signed along 40 even though it technically wasn't. US 64 shields could still be found along Western Blvd since it has been removed, added back, and re-removed. Despite becoming I-495 and now I-87, locals still call it "64" or the Knightdale bypass. Its also a running joke that this strange new I-87 doesn't go anywhere.
Funny thing is that all the locals don't get confused, only the non-conforming Yankees that moved here in the past 40 years and intolerant Southerners who see all that are not native as carpetbaggers. Neither are in the majority but, they are made to be by outside influences to counter the decline of the old guard.
The conforming Yankees see it as growth and tolerate it quite well as it reassures them they made a good choice in moving to a continually growing area that is not a decaying hulk of a formally industrial area of the country. Yes, can say this as I am originally from NE PA and that area is not improving with age at all neither is the majority of country above the South and East of the Mississippi.
Whether or not you like or don't like that I-87 is here is a moot point as it is approved and on the books, if it gets built to completion is subject to so much political BS that there is no way to truly predict it but, the plans are in motion. It is still way more tolerable than that joke of I-99 in Central PA.
Quote from: fillup420 on June 28, 2019, 07:42:19 AM
I was talking to my boss, a longtime resident of Raleigh, about all the road work done around there over the years. He said no one understands why they keep changing the highway numbers every 10 years or so. Up until recently, BGSs on I-40 were confusing and inconsistent due to all the number shuffling. Route shields would be removed from one sign and just slapped up on another wherever they fit. I-440 was still sparsely signed along 40 even though it technically wasn't. US 64 shields could still be found along Western Blvd since it has been removed, added back, and re-removed. Despite becoming I-495 and now I-87, locals still call it "64" or the Knightdale bypass. Its also a running joke that this strange new I-87 doesn't go anywhere.
I'm sure a lot of Raleigh area residents will agree with this. US 64, 70, and 401 were put on the beltway, and then 70 and 401 came back into town. I-440 went through its "Inner/Outer" phase and then became East/West even though a lot of it runs more north-south. And then we had the I-495 experiment. I think (hope?) things are stable now and these confusions will gradually recede into the past.
Be thankful they also didn't sign the Raleigh Beltline as I40 Business which it was briefly designated prior to I440 being signed...
Quote from: Beltway on June 28, 2019, 10:45:56 AM
Not "slightly indirect", but enough so that it cannot/willnot be considered a connector between Raleigh and Norfolk (sorry roadgeeks).
3 minutes slower than US-58, 15-20 additional miles. Already refuted and proven numerous times.
I'm sure many would prefer a 70 mph interstate highway over US-58, myself included, and many locals and friends I know in the area.
People don't stick with arterials just because they're the shortest route mileage wise. Not everyone is driving a semi truck. An interstate is preferred for convenience, and is more traditional and standardized over an arterial highway.
You act like the highway is 50 additional miles, and will be 35 minutes slower when a uniform 70 mph speed limit is posted. You claim it will be way longer time wise, but show no proof.
Until US-58 is upgraded to interstate standards, there will likely be a half-half split between US-58 and I-87 when it's completed, half-half split between people who must take the shortest route and no issues with arterial highways, and the people who would prefer to stick with 70 mph interstate highways and will drive 75-80 mph all the way, and would chose I-87 for a convenience factor. I know people personally who hate US-58, that's not a lie, mostly because of the slower speed limit.
Just face it, an interstate connection is desired by the average person, and for someone who has no issues driving arterial highways and sticking with the shortest distance people, it's easy for you to say you won't use it - but to claim nobody will use it is a stretch, based on personal opinion. Most people aren't mileage strict, and don't mind driving additional mileage just to stick with 70 mph interstate highways. Most people between Hampton Roads and the west would take I-64 to I-81, whereas someone mileage strict would use US-460. People don't mind driving the additional 40 or so miles just to stay on interstate highways, and when you factor in 75-80 mph driving speeds that most people would drive at, it becomes faster overall. People also would consider that between I-87 and US-58, along with the other factors (arterial vs interstate, stop lights vs no stop lights, consistent 70 mph speed over variable 45 - 60 mph, etc). It's not just because I-87 is 15-20 additional miles, and 3 minutes slower obeying the speed limits, nobody will ever use it. I easily see a half-half split.
Quote from: plain on June 28, 2019, 11:13:14 AM
IF Virginia decides to build I-87 and route it over Dominion Blvd, would the bridge still be tolled?
Traditionally, yes, but the HRTAC and HRTPO are currently looking to buy out tolls on the tunnels, and may well in the future evaluate buying out the tolls on Dominion / Potential I-87, and maybe even the Chesapeake Expressway, when funding permits in 10-20 years.
Quote from: plain on June 28, 2019, 11:13:14 AM
Speaking of Dominion, I see Street View is now updated the whole length. I just want to say much of the signage there SUCKS.
Preaching to the choir. The city did good, standardized interstate signage along the Expressway, but someone was smoking something when they designed the signage for Dominion. It's god awful, hopefully if I-87 ever comes up this way, it will be replaced with standard VDOT interstate signage.
Quote from: Beltway on June 28, 2019, 10:45:56 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2019, 09:00:38 AM
Quote from: fillup420 on June 28, 2019, 07:42:19 AM
Its also a running joke that this strange new I-87 doesn't go anywhere.
That's how new interstate highways work. It was the same way when they were popping up in the 50s and 60s. They ran short courses.
No, it was very different. They were building a national network that was well funded and were opening new highways in 30 and 50 mile segments all over the country. 70% of a 42,500 mile system was opened by 1970.
The 320 miles of PA I-80 was entirely completed in 1970, just to give one example of many. The 325 miles of VA I-81 was 90% completed by 1968.
Building interstates in the 21st century is completely different. You can't just expect to build 30-60 mile segments in one piece. Virginia clearly hasn't learned that as they've been trying to build I-73 as one piece for three decades and have gotten nowhere, and have not built any new long-distance interstate highway since the original system. There's more of a focus with arterial highways it seems more so. North Carolina is doing 4-lane projects, though has constructed hundreds of miles of freeway / interstate highways over the past couple of decades mostly without federal funding. I-87 is just another piece to that freeway system connecting all parts of the state together with freeways, and northeastern NC lacks freeway access. See my comments above about also providing an alternate route between the two endpoints for those who aren't mileage strict and don't mind showing up 3 minutes later following the speed limits, or actually saving time if driving 75-80 mph like most people do on interstates.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 01:03:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 28, 2019, 10:45:56 AM
Not "slightly indirect", but enough so that it cannot/willnot be considered a connector between Raleigh and Norfolk (sorry roadgeeks).
3 minutes slower than US-58, 15-20 additional miles. Already refuted and proven numerous times.
20 miles more and 20 minutes slower today. Your future predictions about relative corridors in 2050/whatever belong in fantasy highway territory.
Look, virtually the only counter-posting to my VI-87 comments comes from
-you- and in the tens of thousands of words and hundreds of posts over the last year.
Why would this be unless you have a
professional relationship with this highway proposal?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 01:03:34 AM
North Carolina is doing 4-lane projects, though has constructed hundreds of miles of freeway / interstate highways over the past couple of decades
And basically nothing on the order of a -serious- bridge or tunnel project, because of the general lack of rivers and bays needing crossing by highway. One big one can equal the cost of 100 miles of rural freeway (like HRBT expansion for example).
Virginia has opened over 200 miles of freeway since 1990, and over 150 of that connecting with the Interstate system. Virginia also built 10 different 3-digit Interstate routes by 1992, when N.C. hadn't yet built any.
Quote from: Beltway on June 29, 2019, 08:46:04 AM
Your future predictions about relative corridors
More like mathematical formulas and multiple speed limit scenarios. You're continuous claims stem using the existing 55 mph speed limit, and refuse to even consider what the difference would be with 70 mph throughout.
Quote from: Beltway on June 29, 2019, 08:46:04 AM
Why would this be unless you have a professional relationship with this highway proposal?
Still drinking that Kool-Aid I see. Why would you have a strong personal grudge against one specific project unless you have a professional relationship with an organization against it?
You think just because someone is supportive of a project they work for some organization? You've shown enormous support for Northern Virginia HO/T lanes through numerous posts countering my logical arguments against them. You even stuck up with them for violating FHWA and AASHTO standards, yet if a slightly substandard design is used on a project you don't support, it's a full violation and should cancel the project outright. Do you have a professional relationship with Transurban?
Everybody has projects they support and others they don't. Don't assume just because they support it they work professionally. That's a poor argument that you can't back with any factual evidence. Similar to your claims that any and every NCDOT feasibility study is drafted by economic developers that low-ball costs and impacts. Funny, SELC tried the same claim numerous of times - and failed in court.
Do you have a professional relationship against NCDOT?
QuoteIF Virginia decides to build I-87 and route it over Dominion Blvd, would the bridge still be tolled?
Yes. Chesapeake owns the bridge. And yes, it's allowable under Federal law.
Quote from: froggie on June 29, 2019, 09:47:26 AM
QuoteIF Virginia decides to build I-87 and route it over Dominion Blvd, would the bridge still be tolled?
Yes. Chesapeake owns the bridge. And yes, it's allowable under Federal law.
Well technically, ownership would be transferred to VDOT, though the bridge, as you mention, by default would continue to collect tolls, unless an approach like I mentioned above were to occur, but that's diving into the future and nobody knows what will happen there.
^ Not necessarily. There's precedent for Interstate facilities to not be owned by the parent state transportation department...I-83 in Baltimore being one regional example.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:33:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 29, 2019, 08:46:04 AM
Your future predictions about relative corridors
More like mathematical formulas and multiple speed limit scenarios.
20 miles more and 20 minutes slower today.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:33:48 AM
You're continuous claims stem using the existing 55 mph speed limit, and refuse to even consider what the difference would be with 70 mph throughout.
You refuse to consider any highway improvements on US-58 and I-95 by 2050.
I could live into my 90s and not even see 2050.
Fantasy highway territory.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:33:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 29, 2019, 08:46:04 AM
Why would this be unless you have a professional relationship with this highway proposal?
Still drinking that Kool-Aid I see.
Your Kool-Aid has pot cooked into it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:33:48 AM
Why would you have a strong personal grudge against one specific project unless you have a professional relationship with an organization against it?
Demagoguery. A "personal grudge" rather than objections grounded in economics and engineering.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:33:48 AM
You think just because someone is supportive of a project they work for some organization?
Frankly in 22 years on internet highways forums, the number has been close to zero.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:33:48 AM
You've shown enormous support for Northern Virginia HO/T lanes through numerous posts countering my logical arguments against them. You even stuck up with them for violating FHWA and AASHTO standards, yet if a slightly substandard design is used on a project you don't support, it's a full violation and should cancel the project outright. Do you have a professional relationship with Transurban?
I don't have a professional relationship with anyone since 2017, and the only companies I worked for in my career were PennDOT, VDOT and VCU, and I don't need any salary or wage going forward. Really, lots of people here know my history, and many people at VDOT could verify it.
FHWA and AASHTO would disagree that the HOT lanes violate their standards. HOT lanes are being implemented all over the country.
If you don't like them then don't use them.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:33:48 AM
Do you have a professional relationship against NCDOT?
Is there even any such thing, unless you work for RE/T groups?
Quote from: Beltway on June 29, 2019, 02:35:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:33:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 29, 2019, 08:46:04 AM
Your future predictions about relative corridors
More like mathematical formulas and multiple speed limit scenarios.
20 miles more and 20 minutes slower today.
Nice! :colorful:
Exit numbers have been updated on Google Maps to reflect I-87's mileage & new exit numbers between I-440 and Rolesville Rd.
Does NCDOT plan to add I-87 shields to the western interchange with I-540?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8781978,-78.8361736,3a,75y,161.44h,84.24t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sHDCA-v2taXYwGMH_qfbG7w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DHDCA-v2taXYwGMH_qfbG7w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D264.57047%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Currently it has "To East 64" as it serves as the bypass of Raleigh.
"To North I-87" shields would also make sense here.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 09:29:36 PM
Does NCDOT plan to add I-87 shields to the western interchange with I-540?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8781978,-78.8361736,3a,75y,161.44h,84.24t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sHDCA-v2taXYwGMH_qfbG7w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DHDCA-v2taXYwGMH_qfbG7w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D264.57047%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Currently it has "To East 64" as it serves as the bypass of Raleigh.
"To North I-87" shields would also make sense here.
Where would they put it? There's already a lot of shields on that BGS and it's already tall. Maybe replace the US 64 shield?
They could do what VA does and have a sign somewhere approaching that interchange with the options to I-87 North and the time it takes to get there displayed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 09:29:36 PM
Does NCDOT plan to add I-87 shields to the western interchange with I-540?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8781978,-78.8361736,3a,75y,161.44h,84.24t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sHDCA-v2taXYwGMH_qfbG7w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DHDCA-v2taXYwGMH_qfbG7w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D264.57047%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Currently it has "To East 64" as it serves as the bypass of Raleigh.
"To North I-87" shields would also make sense here.
They added I-87 shields to the BGS on the end of I-540, don't have pics but, just saw them today and believe they were there last week.
How will a freeway at Williamston be built without shifting it east of Williamston? There's a lot of wetlands there and it's not a wise choice to do that in my opinion.
They probably will align it slightly to the east of current US 13-17 routing, or shift the alignment to the west, bypassing the town to the west and north and meeting the current US 13-17 route just north of the Roanoke River.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 19, 2019, 11:55:47 PM
How will a freeway at Williamston be built without shifting it east of Williamston? There's a lot of wetlands there and it's not a wise choice to do that in my opinion.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Pages/study-highlights.aspx
A feasibility study was completed on the corridor last year determining the impacts of upgrading the 80 mile corridor between Williamston and Virginia to interstate standards and conceptual designs for such a freeway.
You can see all of the conceptual maps on the front page of the study website.
The alternatives for Williamston are -
1 - Upgrade the existing roadway to interstate standards
1A - Shift US-17 around the eastern side slightly then tie back into the existing Roanoke River bridges
1B - Shift US-17 around the eastern side further out, construct new bridges over the Roanoke River, then tie back into the existing alignment.
Additionally, in the feasibility study report, there was mention of a future evaluation of a possible western alignment too, potentially utilizing the recently-built NC-125 bypass. Don't see how that would work though, would have see a detailed conceptual map like the other alternatives had.
This early on, there's no set preferred alternative, but these are the options currently being evaluated by NCDOT.
I do not know why it needs to go north to Windsor with US 13, just continue it east along US 64 and then north across the river to meet US 17 some place near NC 32 at Edenton.
^ Why north to Windsor? Because the route you suggest has 3-5 miles of either Albemarle Sound or the Roanoke & Cashie Rivers and their associated wetlands...
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2019, 01:46:41 PM
^ Why north to Windsor? Because the route you suggest has 3-5 miles of either Albemarle Sound or the Roanoke & Cashie Rivers and their associated wetlands...
Also the fact the US-17 routing is more direct, serves Edenton and Windsor, and interstate-grade bypasses already exist around them. US-64 / NC-32 doesn't have that.
If it's shifted west of Williamston, then I'm guessing this is how the interchange will look like:
https://prnt.sc/ohuj3x
I'm 100% sure it would not be upgraded on Prison camp road and redo that existing interchange.
Quote from: LM117 on April 10, 2019, 08:58:25 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 08:25:26 PM
Quote from: goobnav on January 30, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
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?
If you're still interested, the groundbreaking ceremony is set for April 24.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/04/10/CSX-set-to-begin-work-on-new-rail-terminal.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/04/10/CSX-set-to-begin-work-on-new-rail-terminal.html)
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/22/Construction-set-to-start-on-CSX-rail-hub.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/22/Construction-set-to-start-on-CSX-rail-hub.html)
Based on feedback from my new Future I-42 site, I've revised my Future I-87 in NC page to include segments in the Future Construction section based on those in the 2 NCDOT I-87 feasibility studies for US 64 and US 17. This means around 180 mile long I-87 gets 20 segments, the same as the number for the proposed route of 320 mile I-74. Each segment lists, if not complete, what is needed to get it up to interstate standards and whether there's currently a funded project to do so. If not, I discuss the alternative or alternatives suggested by the feasibility studies and projected costs. I will add additional information when it becomes available. http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html)
I wish every single interchange from Raleigh to Chesapeake got lighting. Who cares if the traffic is low. It should have lighting. I hope they don't just widen the shoulders. I think they should add lighting at every interchange as well.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:05:26 AM
I hope they don't just widen the shoulders.
Why not widen the shoulders? It wouldn't meet interstate standards then and quite frankly shoulders are a major safety benefit even if it's not an interstate. Most new highways are built with them in North Carolina, and most other places by default.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 01:17:26 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:05:26 AM
I hope they don't just widen the shoulders.
Why not widen the shoulders? It wouldn't meet interstate standards then and quite frankly shoulders are a major safety benefit even if it's not an interstate. Most new highways are built with them in North Carolina, and most other places by default.
I hope they don't JUST widen the shoulders. I'm saying they will be widened but i hope they don't just do that. I was saying they should widen the shoulders and add lighting at every interchange.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:26:17 AM
add lighting at every interchange.
Ideally, that would be nice, but it's really not needed especially when a lot of the interchanges go to small rural roadways that will be used infrequently during non-daylight hours. More moderate and major junctions I could see it though, and in urban areas.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 01:30:45 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:26:17 AM
add lighting at every interchange.
Ideally, that would be nice, but it's really not needed especially when a lot of the interchanges go to small rural roadways that will be used infrequently during non-daylight hours. More moderate and major junctions I could see it though, and in urban areas.
Probably at US 64 and US 17 and where the freeway downgrades, there as well. So maybe not all but some. I'm not sure if the 11 and 13 one (that goes to Greenville) will get it.
Like looking at US 64 and I-95, that's a busy interchange so that's one of the main reasons that it has lighting. Even interchanges at Rocky Mount and Tarboro after that it goes through a rural area where it's not really needed.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:34:13 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 01:30:45 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:26:17 AM
add lighting at every interchange.
Ideally, that would be nice, but it's really not needed especially when a lot of the interchanges go to small rural roadways that will be used infrequently during non-daylight hours. More moderate and major junctions I could see it though, and in urban areas.
Probably at US 64 and US 17 and where the freeway downgrades, there as well. So maybe not all but some. I'm not sure if the 11 and 13 one (that goes to Greenville) will get it.
Locations where US routes branch off, US-64 / US-17 split, US-17 / US-13 split, US-64 / US-13 / NC-11 split, etc. are good candidates.
Interchanges that have developments off of them such as gas, fuel, lodging, etc. could warrant them as well.
And other interchanges with higher traffic volumes, particularly in urban areas would be candidates as well.
But the interchanges that are small diamond interchanges to a rural road with nothing off of it and light traffic counts wouldn't really warrant lighting.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 01:41:03 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:34:13 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 01:30:45 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:26:17 AM
add lighting at every interchange.
Ideally, that would be nice, but it's really not needed especially when a lot of the interchanges go to small rural roadways that will be used infrequently during non-daylight hours. More moderate and major junctions I could see it though, and in urban areas.
Probably at US 64 and US 17 and where the freeway downgrades, there as well. So maybe not all but some. I'm not sure if the 11 and 13 one (that goes to Greenville) will get it.
Locations where US routes branch off, US-64 / US-17 split, US-17 / US-13 split, US-64 / US-13 / NC-11 split, etc. are good candidates.
Interchanges that have developments off of them such as gas, fuel, lodging, etc. could warrant them as well.
And other interchanges with higher traffic volumes, particularly in urban areas would be candidates as well.
But the interchanges that are small diamond interchanges to a rural road with nothing off of it and light traffic counts wouldn't really warrant lighting.
http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=b7a26d6d8abd419f8c27f58a607b25a1
Use this then you will find where the best placement is. Not Everetts or Robersonville.
Does anyone know when they will start upgrading to interstate standards over here? Because I want to know to see it. I know they are working on I-42 but I want to see it over here also.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 04:41:18 PM
Does anyone know when they will start upgrading to interstate standards over here? Because I want to know to see it. I know they are working on I-42 but I want to see it over here also.
The only funded stretch is widening US-64 between Business 64 and the US-264 freeway to 6-lanes. That would presumably also bring it to interstate standards.
There's also 2 interchanges funded for construction in Hertford, NC along US-17, but not scheduled to start until 2027 - 2029.
The stretch between Virginia and Elizabeth City was funded in the 2018 - 2027 STIP for construction in 2027, however the new 2020 - 2029 STIP did not include funding for that.
Part of the issue is that they are trying to build this in large projects, like upgrading US-17 between Virginia and Elizabeth City in one string. They need to do small pieces at a time if they want any funding. For instance, that stretch between Virginia and Elizabeth is limited-access. They should be pursuing smaller projects that all follow the feasibility study's recommendations like interchange projects here and there, and a frontage road project. This is the technique being used on US-74 between I-95 and Wilmington, one interchange at a time. That's been more successful then trying to get it done in one string.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 04:58:44 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 04:41:18 PM
Does anyone know when they will start upgrading to interstate standards over here? Because I want to know to see it. I know they are working on I-42 but I want to see it over here also.
The only funded stretch is widening US-64 between Business 64 and the US-264 freeway to 6-lanes. That would presumably also bring it to interstate standards.
There's also 2 interchanges funded for construction in Hertford, NC along US-17, but not scheduled to start until 2027 - 2029.
The stretch between Virginia and Elizabeth City was funded in the 2018 - 2027 STIP for construction in 2027, however the new 2020 - 2029 STIP did not include funding for that.
Part of the issue is that they are trying to build this in large projects, like upgrading US-17 between Virginia and Elizabeth City in one string. They need to do small pieces at a time if they want any funding. For instance, that stretch between Virginia and Elizabeth is limited-access. They should be pursuing smaller projects that all follow the feasibility study's recommendations like interchange projects here and there, and a frontage road project. This is the technique being used on US-74 between I-95 and Wilmington, one interchange at a time. That's been more successful then trying to get it done in one string.
Wonder why they are going so slow... It's a bummer. Will I-587 open first?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:01:48 PM
Will I-587 open first?
That's almost a guarantee. The I-587 corridor is already a freeway. The only thing it needs is wider shoulders, and that is being completed in pavement rehabilitation projects, with the first stretch between I-95 and Greenville underway now or scheduled to start now
(someone would have to confirm this, US-264 isn't something I drive on or have any reason to).
Once the shoulders are widened, the blue-and-red shields can go up.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 07:25:25 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:01:48 PM
Will I-587 open first?
That's almost a guarantee. The I-587 corridor is already a freeway. The only thing it needs is wider shoulders, and that is being completed in pavement rehabilitation projects, with the first stretch between I-95 and Greenville underway now or scheduled to start now (someone would have to confirm this, US-264 isn't something I drive on or have any reason to).
Once the shoulders are widened, the blue-and-red shields can go up.
Yeah, that's nice! I'm ready for it to see the blue and red shields!
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 08:51:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 07:25:25 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:01:48 PM
Will I-587 open first?
That's almost a guarantee. The I-587 corridor is already a freeway. The only thing it needs is wider shoulders, and that is being completed in pavement rehabilitation projects, with the first stretch between I-95 and Greenville underway now or scheduled to start now (someone would have to confirm this, US-264 isn't something I drive on or have any reason to).
Once the shoulders are widened, the blue-and-red shields can go up.
Yeah, that's nice! I'm ready for it to see the blue and red shields!
There are 2 combined projects, I-6032 and I-6035 that will rehabilitate pavement and widen shoulders along US 264 in Greene and Pitt County that were let on May 21, 2019. They do not appear to have started yet since there's no reference to them in the Construction Progress Report for the respective counties. There are no other I-587 related projects listed in either the Tentative July 2019-June 2020 Letting List or the 36 month list to July 2022.
The award letter to the winning contractor:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-21-2019%20Central%20Letting/I-6032,%20I-6035,%2047981.3.GV1,%20etc.,%20C204332.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-21-2019%20Central%20Letting/I-6032,%20I-6035,%2047981.3.GV1,%20etc.,%20C204332.pdf)
Quote from: bob7374 on July 27, 2019, 11:16:01 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 08:51:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 07:25:25 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:01:48 PM
Will I-587 open first?
That's almost a guarantee. The I-587 corridor is already a freeway. The only thing it needs is wider shoulders, and that is being completed in pavement rehabilitation projects, with the first stretch between I-95 and Greenville underway now or scheduled to start now (someone would have to confirm this, US-264 isn't something I drive on or have any reason to).
Once the shoulders are widened, the blue-and-red shields can go up.
Yeah, that's nice! I'm ready for it to see the blue and red shields!
There are 2 combined projects, I-6032 and I-6035 that will rehabilitate pavement and widen shoulders along US 264 in Greene and Pitt County that were let on May 21, 2019. They do not appear to have started yet since there's no reference to them in the Construction Progress Report for the respective counties. There are no other I-587 related projects listed in either the Tentative July 2019-June 2020 Letting List or the 36 month list to July 2022.
The award letter to the winning contractor:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-21-2019%20Central%20Letting/I-6032,%20I-6035,%2047981.3.GV1,%20etc.,%20C204332.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-21-2019%20Central%20Letting/I-6032,%20I-6035,%2047981.3.GV1,%20etc.,%20C204332.pdf)
Well that kinda sucks that they are long because the pavement on the highway is terrible. It needs repaving badly.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf
I apologize if this was already posted, but i was just asking if it's a good idea to raise the speed limit to 75 mph.
According to this article, the signing work in Raleigh and Knightdale should be complete by the end of the month.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/08/01/New-signs-reflect-I-87-taking-shape.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/08/01/New-signs-reflect-I-87-taking-shape.html)
Quote from: LM117 on August 01, 2019, 08:01:21 AM
According to this article, the signing work in Raleigh and Knightdale should be complete by the end of the month.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/08/01/New-signs-reflect-I-87-taking-shape.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/08/01/New-signs-reflect-I-87-taking-shape.html)
QuoteNorth Carolina had requested the highway be designated as I-89, but that road already existed in New England.
The FHA assigned I-87, which also existed in New York state, with the reasoning that it was more likely that the new I-87s might eventually connect than the other two roadways.
I thought this idea was dead in 2006 at the conclusion of VDOT's study that only North Carolina and Delaware were interested in a coastal route
(obviously an I-87 extension would only be north of US-64 unlike the I-99 proposal, but everything from there northward is the same as the VDOT 2006 study evaluated).
IMO, Virginia has much higher priorities than building an 80-mile highway on the Eastern Shore and a massive urban upgrade to US-13 in Virginia Beach / Norfolk. The farthest north I see this highway going is I-64. An Eastern Shore highway would be a nice idea in theory, enough I even made a Fictional Highways proposal if it were to ever be built, though in reality it's never going to happen. It's just as likely to happen as linking the two I-74s.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 01, 2019, 08:05:46 AM
Quote from: LM117 on August 01, 2019, 08:01:21 AM
According to this article, the signing work in Raleigh and Knightdale should be complete by the end of the month.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/08/01/New-signs-reflect-I-87-taking-shape.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/08/01/New-signs-reflect-I-87-taking-shape.html)
QuoteNorth Carolina had requested the highway be designated as I-89, but that road already existed in New England.
The FHA assigned I-87, which also existed in New York state, with the reasoning that it was more likely that the new I-87s might eventually connect than the other two roadways.
I thought this idea was dead in 2006 at the conclusion of VDOT's study that only North Carolina and Delaware were interested in a coastal route (obviously an I-87 extension would only be north of US-64 unlike the I-99 proposal, but everything from there northward is the same as the VDOT 2006 study evaluated).
IMO, Virginia has much higher priorities than building an 80-mile highway on the Eastern Shore and a massive urban upgrade to US-13 in Virginia Beach / Norfolk. The farthest north I see this highway going is I-64. An Eastern Shore highway would be a nice idea in theory, enough I even made a Fictional Highways proposal if it were to ever be built, though in reality it's never going to happen. It's just as likely to happen as linking the two I-74s.
That's just wishful thinking on AASHTO's part. There's no way in hell the Eastern Shore would ever support an interstate there, especially Northampton County, which is notoriously NIMBY. Plus there's the little thing called the CBBT.
If VA does build their part of I-87 (very doubtful), I think it should take over I-464 and end at I-264.
Quote from: LM117 on August 01, 2019, 08:29:52 AM
I think it should take over I-464 and end at I-264.
Agreed. Another thing that needs to be factored is the Oak Grove Interchange (VA-168 / US-17 / I-64 / I-464). The northern part is planned to be reconstructed as apart of the I-64 Widening Phase 2 in 10-15 years, however the southern part would need to be designed to have I-87 to I-464 and vice versa as the thru movement. The I-464 (or "I-87 South") to VA-168 and vice versa movement would also need to be designed as a major split but it would not be the continuous route as it is today.
So 14 miles of rural US-17 limited-access highway would need upgrades, minor improvements to Dominion Blvd which is now an urban freeway with a fixed-span bridge over the Elizabeth River, and an expansion to the southern part of that interchange in conjunction with the I-64 expansion portion. I'd say ~$200 million for the portion south of Cedar Rd, and ~$150 million for the Oak Grove Interchange.
I honestly think that VDOT should complete an EIS the entire Oak Grove Interchange and develop recommendations similar to how they are studying the Bowers Hill Interchange. Improving it to have US-17 North to I-464 North as the thru movement could be a potential design feature - similar to how one of the options for the Bowers Hill Interchange makes I-264 to US-58 the thru movement. A separate EIS would involve "Upgrading US-17 between Great Bridge Blvd and North Carolina state line to interstate standards" - again, similar to how upgrading US-58 between the Suffolk Bypass and the Bowers Hill Interchange to interstate standards is a separate study from the interchange itself.
From what I recall, 87 was picked not because of the possibility to connect to the New York I-87, but because it was the number with the least potential to cause confusion with a state route of the same number. Though IMO, there were plenty of even-numbered options with the same low potential.
Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2019, 08:58:53 AM
From what I recall, 87 was picked not because of the possibility to connect to the New York I-87, but because it was the number with the least potential to cause confusion with a state route of the same number. Though IMO, there were plenty of even-numbered options with the same low potential.
I think that the number 87 could cause some confusion. There's already a freeway numbered 87 elsewhere in the state, and the surface portion of NC 87 isn't that far from proposed I-87.
They could have extended NC 54 and called I-54/NC 54 part of the same route.
Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2019, 08:58:53 AM
From what I recall, 87 was picked not because of the possibility to connect to the New York I-87, but because it was the number with the least potential to cause confusion with a state route of the same number.
AASHTO disagrees.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)
Quote
NCDOT had initially requested to call the highway Interstate 89, but there's already one of those, too, in New Hampshire and Vermont. AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization's route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Quote from: LM117 on August 01, 2019, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2019, 08:58:53 AM
From what I recall, 87 was picked not because of the possibility to connect to the New York I-87, but because it was the number with the least potential to cause confusion with a state route of the same number.
AASHTO disagrees.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)
Quote
NCDOT had initially requested to call the highway Interstate 89, but there's already one of those, too, in New Hampshire and Vermont. AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization's route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.
Both explanations are "CYA" rationalizations for less than due diligence on the part of SCOURN. While they rejected NCDOT's selection of "I-89" for the NC/VA corridor, they accepted the odd-numbered rationale for a facility that's more E-W than N-S (I-85's presence to the west notwithstanding). When NCDOT presented their rejection of the various even-numbered corridors simply because there were like-numbered state highways in the vicinity and they didn't want to have to renumber them (although the new I-42 and NC 42 don't seem to faze them -- even though they originally wanted I-50, then I-36, for the US 70 corridor!); AASHTO/SCOURN should have simply overridden that concept and subsequently chosen an unused even number between 40 and 64 (which would, to avoid conflict with US routes, mean 46, 54, or 56) and authorized such a number. And if they still stuck to the odd-numbered concept, since most of the corridor lies east of I-95, they could have designated it I-97 -- where there's a hell of a better chance of connecting to the existing route than anything up in the northeast corner of the country! I
still think a blustery late-winter SCOURN meeting in Des Moines combined with an open or at worst cash bar may have contributed to the lack of rationality here -- and having posted this surmising previously and seeing replies stating that yes, there's little to do in Des Moines outside of drinking during that time of year (although it's almost certain that some sarcasm is creeping in here! -- although I
have been through there in March, and can attest to the gloomy weather). Nevertheless, it'll likely be years if not decades before any (cough) I-87 shields show up north of Williamston (outside of "future" MGS's), so there's some chance things may change by that point, especially if NCDOT in the interim decides to pull the trigger on a comprehensive Interstate-grade US 17 upgrade between Williamston and Wilmington (and, given their track record, one could not put that past them!). Eventually, I-87 may well go the way of the now-defunct I-495!
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2019, 04:56:33 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 01, 2019, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2019, 08:58:53 AM
From what I recall, 87 was picked not because of the possibility to connect to the New York I-87, but because it was the number with the least potential to cause confusion with a state route of the same number.
AASHTO disagrees.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)
Quote
NCDOT had initially requested to call the highway Interstate 89, but there's already one of those, too, in New Hampshire and Vermont. AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization's route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.
Both explanations are "CYA" rationalizations for less than due diligence on the part of SCOURN. While they rejected NCDOT's selection of "I-89" for the NC/VA corridor, they accepted the odd-numbered rationale for a facility that's more E-W than N-S (I-85's presence to the west notwithstanding). When NCDOT presented their rejection of the various even-numbered corridors simply because there were like-numbered state highways in the vicinity and they didn't want to have to renumber them (although the new I-42 and NC 42 don't seem to faze them -- even though they originally wanted I-50, then I-36, for the US 70 corridor!); AASHTO/SCOURN should have simply overridden that concept and subsequently chosen an unused even number between 40 and 64 (which would, to avoid conflict with US routes, mean 46, 54, or 56) and authorized such a number. And if they still stuck to the odd-numbered concept, since most of the corridor lies east of I-95, they could have designated it I-97 -- where there's a hell of a better chance of connecting to the existing route than anything up in the northeast corner of the country! I still think a blustery late-winter SCOURN meeting in Des Moines combined with an open or at worst cash bar may have contributed to the lack of rationality here -- and having posted this surmising previously and seeing replies stating that yes, there's little to do in Des Moines outside of drinking during that time of year (although it's almost certain that some sarcasm is creeping in here! -- although I have been through there in March, and can attest to the gloomy weather). Nevertheless, it'll likely be years if not decades before any (cough) I-87 shields show up north of Williamston (outside of "future" MGS's), so there's some chance things may change by that point, especially if NCDOT in the interim decides to pull the trigger on a comprehensive Interstate-grade US 17 upgrade between Williamston and Wilmington (and, given their track record, one could not put that past them!). Evantually, I-87 may well go the way of the now-defunct I-495!
I wish I-495 came back. I don't like I-87 designation at all. I don't understand why Raleigh and Norfolk needs a 2 digit interstate. bring back the Raleigh Connector!
Saying that, bring back I-595 to Greenville!
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 01, 2019, 10:59:16 PM
I wish I-495 came back. I don't like I-87 designation at all. I don't understand why Raleigh and Norfolk needs a 2 digit interstate. bring back the Raleigh Connector!
Saying that, bring back I-595 to Greenville!
You think Greenville should have an interstate leaving in all four directions, but Norfolk shouldn't get an interstate to the south... The Hampton Roads metro is 15x larger than Greenville... good luck trying to sell that.
Quote from: LM117 on August 01, 2019, 08:29:52 AM
That's just wishful thinking on AASHTO's part. There's no way in hell the Eastern Shore would ever support an interstate there, especially Northampton County, which is notoriously NIMBY. Plus there's the little thing called the CBBT.
If VA does build their part of I-87 (very doubtful), I think it should take over I-464 and end at I-264.
Hopefully more than one state will have the common sense to not attempt to build a Vanity Interstate Highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 01, 2019, 11:06:19 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 01, 2019, 10:59:16 PM
I wish I-495 came back. I don't like I-87 designation at all. I don't understand why Raleigh and Norfolk needs a 2 digit interstate. bring back the Raleigh Connector!
Saying that, bring back I-595 to Greenville!
You think Greenville should have an interstate leaving in all four directions, but Norfolk shouldn't get an interstate to the south... The Hampton Roads metro is 15x larger than Greenville... good luck trying to sell that.
Yeah Norfolk should get an interstate, maybe I-99 from there to Wilmington hopefully but that part is unfinished. I guess I-87 would do the trick. when they finish upgrading the US 17 corridor.
Nobody commented on my NC 54/I-54 idea. Do you think that would have worked well?
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2019, 11:26:16 PM
Nobody commented on my NC 54/I-54 idea. Do you think that would have worked well?
I'd say just renumber NC-54 to something else IF you were to do that. Extending NC-54 to follow an I-54 on the Norfolk-Raleigh routing would likely cause confusion.
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2019, 11:26:16 PM
Nobody commented on my NC 54/I-54 idea. Do you think that would have worked well?
To convert NC 54 to I-54? I think an I-x40 would work but i think they are all taken. So maybe an I-38 which is the not a wise choice.
I was only suggesting that NC 54 would be extended to the point where the new Interstate (numbered 54) would start. There would be no 54/54 overlap, but it would have a continuous number. This is already done in New York.
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2019, 11:52:02 PM
I was only suggesting that NC 54 would be extended to the point where the new Interstate (numbered 54) would start. There would be no 54/54 overlap, but it would have a continuous number. This is already done in New York.
I suppose that could work... An east-west highway designation could work better for this corridor, though I really haven't had much issues with the way it is now... Then again I'm not so grid-strict as some other posters on here are. Other highways like I-99 that are off-grid don't bother me either.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 01, 2019, 11:55:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2019, 11:52:02 PM
I was only suggesting that NC 54 would be extended to the point where the new Interstate (numbered 54) would start. There would be no 54/54 overlap, but it would have a continuous number. This is already done in New York.
I suppose that could work... An east-west highway designation could work better for this corridor, though I really haven't had much issues with the way it is now... Then again I'm not so grid-strict as some other posters on here are. Other highways like I-99 that are off-grid don't bother me either.
My objections to the 87 designation are not so much regarding the grid as deliberate stupidity on the part of, first NCDOT re the state highway conflict (they should have done their homework and realized that such an argument would never stand) and then AASHTO's SCOURN regarding the retention of the N-S route rationale rather than the more appropriate E-W designation pool, from which a new rather than ill-reused number could be drawn. 2di route designation duplication had
never previously occurred
when there was an alternative to doing so; this sets a
very bad precedent.
Likewise, my objections to I-87 have nothing to do with the grid and everything to do with loathing the duplication of a 2di. The duplicates are aberrations; we should be working to eliminate them, not add more of them (same for the suffixes, but that discussion relates to Texas).
lol at those who are objecting about 2di being out of grid, etc. guess what? it happens everywhere. Even some U.S. Routes are out of grid and yet you're still complaining... :-D
We are entitled to our opinions, obviously. I stopped objections about it a long time ago and learned to appreciate new route numbers.
I have no issues with Interstate/U.S. route numbers being out of grid as long as they connect from point A to B.
Quote from: Strider on August 02, 2019, 01:47:02 PM
lol at those who are objecting about 2di being out of grid, etc. guess what? it happens everywhere. Even some U.S. Routes are out of grid and yet you're still complaining... :-D
We are entitled to our opinions, obviously. I stopped objections about it a long time ago and learned to appreciate new route numbers.
I have no issues with Interstate/U.S. route numbers being out of grid as long as they connect from point A to B.
US 44 being north of US 6. US 20 being north of US 6 and US 6 even dropping down below US 50. Oh then US 59 that is west of US 71 (and US 73).
Hey we got folks boycotting Breezewood, PA despite that it will not put no dent whatsoever in their pocketbook.
Its a discussion board but some get so literal especially in fictional highways.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2019, 05:01:45 PM
Quote from: Strider on August 02, 2019, 01:47:02 PM
lol at those who are objecting about 2di being out of grid, etc. guess what? it happens everywhere. Even some U.S. Routes are out of grid and yet you're still complaining... :-D
We are entitled to our opinions, obviously. I stopped objections about it a long time ago and learned to appreciate new route numbers.
I have no issues with Interstate/U.S. route numbers being out of grid as long as they connect from point A to B.
US 44 being north of US 6. US 20 being north of US 6 and US 6 even dropping down below US 50. Oh then US 59 that is west of US 71 (and US 73).
Hey we got folks boycotting Breezewood, PA despite that it will not put no dent whatsoever in their pocketbook.
Its a discussion board but some get so literal especially in fictional highways.
Better, US 13 is east of US 11 and US 1 for it's entire run from PA to NC.
I-87 is being built and is partially signed and will eventually travel to another state, not completely in the state of NY as it's northern counterpart, my suggestion is renumbering that road I-595.
Quote from: Strider on August 02, 2019, 01:47:02 PM
I have no issues with Interstate/U.S. route numbers being out of grid as long as they connect from point A to B.
I have issues with Vanity Interstate Highways.
It does not bother Michigan and Ohio to not sign US (and state) freeways as Interstate highways (US 23, US 131, US 127, US 35, OH 11, and parts of US 30). If these states were like North Carolina, US 23 would be I-875, US 131 would be I-296 (Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo), US 127 would be I-73, and US 35 would be either I-371 or an I-58. In North Carolina, US 64 could remain as is along with US 17 if it is ever upgraded.
This is not to say that there could not be an Interstate highway from Raleigh to Norfolk. One of my first posts was here in Fictional Highways suggesting an I-46 routing from Raleigh to Va. Beach. My routing involved a new terrain route following NC 11 from near Bethel to Ahoskie, then following US 13 to the southwestern Suffolk Bypass, using that and having US 13/58/460 upgraded through the Dismal Swamp to I-264, following that until its end in Va. Beach. This is kind of a long route like I-87, however, I, at the time, felt like its was "cutting a corner"--shortening some of the distance between Raleigh and Norfolk. I also have envisioned another routing (also involving new terrain) leaving US 64 east of Rocky Mount, following NC 97 to US 258, following US 258 to east of Rich Square, following NC 305, NC 561, and NC 461 to US 13 north of Ahoskie, then following my fictional route of I-46. This could even be called I-54 (I like that better as NC 54 would be west of Raleigh, this would be east of Raleigh, and VA 54 isn't anywhere near this Fictional I-54). I was envisioning routes that would possibly be a quicker way to travel between these two areas than the two main ones that are currently discussed.
I do see why the route of I-87 was chosen as it involves mostly upgrades and not a lot of "new terrain" construction. However, and I do not want an argumentative discussion on this, I feel that it is a "six of one, half dozen of the other" as far as distance and time to go from one area to the other once I-87 is ever completed. It would depend on how a person wants to travel to go from one area to the other. Driving either way will get a person from Raleigh to Norfolk within 15-20 minutes of each other--if one drives without breaks. It will depend on whether a person wants a fairly leisurely drive (I-87) or one with a good amount of traffic (US 58/I-95). It could also depend on the services available along these routings.
I also see why NC wants this--a way to possibly improve the areas in eastern NC with the free advertising of the Interstate logo. I mean, I-87 will be in Virginia for, at the most, 23 miles verses the approximate 180 miles in NC. This is why, other than budgetary reasons, is why Virginia is rather ambivalent on whether I-87 is completed or not. Sure, it would be nice to see I-87 become a reality--mostly to assist those in eastern NC, however, I do not see it happening possibly within the next 50 years with the upgrades needed (see NY 17/I-86). Plus, IMHO, it should have been numbered I-54, however, there is nothing that can be done about it now. :-/
Actually I-87 was initially I-495 and made complete sense as a connector from I-95 to the Triangle area in NC from those traveling south on I-95 and not wanting to use I-85 and US 1 or going passed the area and backtracking on I-40.
The remaining almost interstate east of I-95 could have been easily upgraded and signed as I-595 to Williamston and if a bypass was constructed around Williamston and connected to the freeway to Columbia and continued the I-595 concept to there, possibly now I-387 and would give the OBX a direct interstate connection and evacuation route, US 64 will have the remaining 2 lane section turned into 4 lanes in the near future, interstate or not.
I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle.
Not like I-76 (western) which only connects Denver and I-80 and only in Nebraska for max 2 miles. I-86 (western) in Idaho connects Pocatello with I-84, should be I-684 or I-484. I-86 (eastern) will be a redundancy to I-90 and I-80 and, is only in PA for about 8 miles. I-99 is definitely a vanity Interstate and needs to be assigned a 3 digit ID. I-97 in MD is pointless and should be given back it's MD 3 or be considered and extension of I-595 and actually signed, odd numbered 3 digits can still connect to Interstates on both ends especially if part of it is not signed.
Ok, rant over.
Quote from: goobnav on August 08, 2019, 08:55:37 AM
I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle.
If I drew a line from Macon to Jacksonville, that (fictional) Interstate would connect two major population centers (the northern one being Atlanta), but it would be redundant to I-75 and I-10.
Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2019, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: goobnav on August 08, 2019, 08:55:37 AM
I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle.
If I drew a line from Macon to Jacksonville, that (fictional) Interstate would connect two major population centers (the northern one being Atlanta), but it would be redundant to I-75 and I-10.
Yeah, what's I-87 redundant to? E.g point?
Quote from: goobnav on August 08, 2019, 09:14:21 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2019, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: goobnav on August 08, 2019, 08:55:37 AM
I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle.
If I drew a line from Macon to Jacksonville, that (fictional) Interstate would connect two major population centers (the northern one being Atlanta), but it would be redundant to I-75 and I-10.
Yeah, what's I-87 redundant to? E.g point?
I-95 and US 58
Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2019, 09:18:08 AM
Quote from: goobnav on August 08, 2019, 09:14:21 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2019, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: goobnav on August 08, 2019, 08:55:37 AM
I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle.
If I drew a line from Macon to Jacksonville, that (fictional) Interstate would connect two major population centers (the northern one being Atlanta), but it would be redundant to I-75 and I-10.
Yeah, what's I-87 redundant to? E.g point?
I-95 and US 58
It's apparent you've never been to NC, you forgot US 64. Thank you for playing.
^ But I have been to NC. Numerous times. He's right...64/17 is redundant to 95/58, especially given the latter's shorter mileage.
Quote from: froggie on August 08, 2019, 09:27:01 AM
^ But I have been to NC. Numerous times. He's right...64/17 is redundant to 95/58, especially given the latter's shorter mileage.
Froggie, I know you're right but, they were only half right, :), point of an argument is to have all the facts.
Ending rant, :).
I'd agree with the fact it is redundant over US-58 if US-58 was a freeway, but it's not. The extra mileage would be overcome by a higher speed limit, 70 mph, so you're not going to have this 15-20 minute gap that opposers to the road claim, it's going to be closer to a 2-4 minute gap (proven before, also did not factor in delay with traffic signals on US-58 which could decrease the gap further) You also have to figure the convenience factor of taking a freeway as opposed to an arterial that still has 45 mph urban segments with traffic signals, the fact that you avoid 55 miles of I-95, which if you're traveling at peak times is going to be slower than an I-87 routing, and that an I-87 routing would have less traffic and more enjoyable & relaxed of a drive rather than 55 miles of I-95 which can be quite packed sometimes and even congested occasionally.
So you can punch numbers in all day long and say that US-58 will always be the preferred routing. Using reality though, it's a 50/50 shot based on your personal preferences. Once I-87 is built, if you like the current routing with the high-traffic I-95 overlap, a 60 mph arterial with urban segments & traffic signals, and are mileage strict, keep taking it, no one is stopping you. If you'd prefer an interstate highway, no traffic signals, less traffic, a 70 mph speed limit, and are willing to drive 15-20 additional miles but similar travel times to get that, take I-87, no one is stopping you.
I think the debate on which route is more preferred by people is silly. It's whatever each individual person driving between the endpoints has preference to.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 08, 2019, 10:22:33 AM
I'd agree with the fact it is redundant over US-58 if US-58 was a freeway, but it's not
I-95 -is- a freeway, and with a 70 mph speed limit.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 08, 2019, 10:22:33 AM
The extra mileage would be overcome by a higher speed limit, 70 mph, so you're not going to have this 15-20 minute gap that opposers to the road claim, it's going to be closer to a 2-4 minute gap
B A L O N E Yand you know it.
Have you ever seen the movie The Final Countdown? What is the central theme?
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 12:50:47 PM
I-95 -is- a freeway, and with a 70 mph speed limit.
US-58 is -not- a freeway, and only has a 60 mph rural speed limit, and 45-55 mph in the urban areas with traffic signals.
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 12:50:47 PM
B A L O N E Y
and you know it.
You can't help yourself. Show your work before you start making false claims. Using existing 55 mph speed limits on US-17 is irrelevant, but is exactly what you're doing, failing to factor in 60+ miles would be increased to 70 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 08, 2019, 01:08:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 12:50:47 PM
B A L O N E Y (any way you slice it)
and you know it.
You can't help yourself. Show your work before you start making false claims. Using existing 55 mph speed limits on US-17 is irrelevant, but is exactly what you're doing, failing to factor in 60+ miles would be increased to 70 mph.
20 miles and 20 minutes for you to overcome.
Did you research the theme of that movie?
Quote from: sprjus4I'd agree with the fact it is redundant over US-58 if US-58 was a freeway, but it's not.
Whether US 58 is a freeway or not is immaterial to the point that it is the primary 4-lane corridor utilized by traffic between Hampton Roads and North Carolina. Routes can be redundant to others regardless of what type of route it is.
By your logic, we should say that Military Hwy isn't redundant to 64 on the Southside because it isn't a freeway.
This latest round of discussion (and bickering) actually led me to think about something: what exactly is stopping Chesapeake from increasing VA 168 & the rural part of US 17 in their present state to 60 MPH or more? Is there some kind of quirk in the state or federal law or something as far as city maintained roads go? Do these really need to be interstates for that to happen?
Quote from: froggie on August 08, 2019, 02:17:13 PM
By your logic, we should say that Military Hwy isn't redundant to 64 on the Southside because it isn't a freeway.
It isn't redundant... it serves its own purposes for local traffic, and is a major thoroughfare east of US-17.
Quote from: plain on August 08, 2019, 02:40:29 PM
This latest round of discussion (and bickering) actually led me to think about something: what exactly is stopping Chesapeake from increasing VA 168 & the rural part of US 17 in their present state to 60 MPH or more? Is there some kind of quirk in the state or federal law or something as far as city maintained roads go? Do these really need to be interstates for that to happen?
US-17 cannot be higher than 60 mph due to its function not being a freeway but rather an at-grade arterial, but it can be raised to 60 mph. North Carolina raised its stretch about a decade ago, no reason Chesapeake can't. A city official told me over a year ago they were conducting a speed study on that stretch and would look at "raising it south of US-17 Business" , but who knows what happened to that being over a year later and nothing.
If Virginia were to ever extend I-87 up from the state line to I-64, the segment between the state line and US-17 Business could easily be 65 mph (it would drop from 70 mph to 65 mph at the state line) and 60 mph north of there to an improved Oak Grove Interchange at I-64.
As for VA-168, it can legally be as high as 70 mph as its a full freeway, and I would recommend a minimum of 60 mph on the entire thing, maybe 65 mph south of either VA-165 or Hanbury, but no higher than 60 mph north of there. Too much urban traffic, a few sharper curves, and substandard design features especially around the VA-168 Business / VA-190 area.
The only thing preventing it right now is a city ordinance that indicates the maximum allowable speed limit on city maintained roads is 55 mph. That would need to be revised in order to raise the city-maintained VA-168 and US-17.
I really don't mind the Interstate 87 designation (although maybe it could have been a southern 97 or 99). I also wouldn't mind if it were Interstate 90210 (although such an Interstate designation would probably be better suited for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area).
The argument about whether I-87 will have any advantage over I-95/US 58 started about 10 minutes after NC asked for the interstate designation and it has occupied far too much space in this Forum ever since, probably without changing anyone's mind. I-87 may be a great idea or it may be a huge mistake, and if we live long enough we'll probably find out which it is. Meanwhile I-87 is going to get built and there are aspects of that development worth discussing here without any mention of US 58.
End of rant.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 08, 2019, 05:31:54 PM
The argument about whether I-87 will have any advantage over I-95/US 58 started about 10 minutes after NC asked for the interstate designation and it has occupied far too much space in this Forum ever since, probably without changing anyone's mind. I-87 may be a great idea or it may be a huge mistake, and if we live long enough we'll probably find out which it is. Meanwhile I-87 is going to get built and there are aspects of that development worth discussing here without any mention of US 58.
End of rant.
If I-86/NY-17 is any indication of the upgrading of a 4-lane arterial corridor, it may well be 50 years or more (if ever) before this one gets built.
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 08, 2019, 05:31:54 PM
The argument about whether I-87 will have any advantage over I-95/US 58 started about 10 minutes after NC asked for the interstate designation and it has occupied far too much space in this Forum ever since, probably without changing anyone's mind. I-87 may be a great idea or it may be a huge mistake, and if we live long enough we'll probably find out which it is. Meanwhile I-87 is going to get built and there are aspects of that development worth discussing here without any mention of US 58.
End of rant.
If I-86/NY-17 is any indication of the upgrading of a 4-lane arterial corridor, it may well be 50 years or more (if ever) before this one gets built.
Well -- it
is NC, not NY, so official support for the corridor is likely to remain high; but if funding for statewide freeway projects keeps getting pushed back (as per the last few posts over in the NC state thread), the longer the developmental term is likely to be -- at least in the state that initiated the project (the irony doesn't escape me!). It just might be that NC has bitten off more than it can chew in one sitting.
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2019, 10:24:29 PM
Well -- it is NC, not NY, so official support for the corridor is likely to remain high; but if funding for statewide freeway projects keeps getting pushed back (as per the last few posts over in the NC state thread), the longer the developmental term is likely to be -- at least in the state that initiated the project (the irony doesn't escape me!). It just might be that NC has bitten off more than it can chew in one sitting.
Indeed (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf)...
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2019, 10:24:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 06:26:40 PM
If I-86/NY-17 is any indication of the upgrading of a 4-lane arterial corridor, it may well be 50 years or more (if ever) before this one gets built.
Well -- it is NC, not NY, so official support for the corridor is likely to remain high; but if funding for statewide freeway projects keeps getting pushed back (as per the last few posts over in the NC state thread), the longer the developmental term is likely to be -- at least in the state that initiated the project (the irony doesn't escape me!). It just might be that NC has bitten off more than it can chew in one sitting.
Have they been issuing massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects in the last 10 years or so? Rising amounts of debt service taking more and more funding from the TIP? That is what brought PennDOT's construction program to a screeching halt in the 1970s.
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 11:34:55 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2019, 10:24:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 06:26:40 PM
If I-86/NY-17 is any indication of the upgrading of a 4-lane arterial corridor, it may well be 50 years or more (if ever) before this one gets built.
Well -- it is NC, not NY, so official support for the corridor is likely to remain high; but if funding for statewide freeway projects keeps getting pushed back (as per the last few posts over in the NC state thread), the longer the developmental term is likely to be -- at least in the state that initiated the project (the irony doesn't escape me!). It just might be that NC has bitten off more than it can chew in one sitting.
Have they been issuing massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects in the last 10 years or so? Rising amounts of debt service taking more and more funding from the TIP? That is what brought PennDOT's construction program to a screeching halt in the 1970s.
NC is under better Management than PA, the side resurfacing deals that allowed for the piss poor construction, I-81, don't exist here. Research Adinizo Construction for further reference in the PA debacle.
Quote from: goobnav on August 09, 2019, 11:27:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 11:34:55 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2019, 10:24:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 06:26:40 PM
If I-86/NY-17 is any indication of the upgrading of a 4-lane arterial corridor, it may well be 50 years or more (if ever) before this one gets built.
Well -- it is NC, not NY, so official support for the corridor is likely to remain high; but if funding for statewide freeway projects keeps getting pushed back (as per the last few posts over in the NC state thread), the longer the developmental term is likely to be -- at least in the state that initiated the project (the irony doesn't escape me!). It just might be that NC has bitten off more than it can chew in one sitting.
Have they been issuing massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects in the last 10 years or so? Rising amounts of debt service taking more and more funding from the TIP? That is what brought PennDOT's construction program to a screeching halt in the 1970s.
NC is under better Management than PA, the side resurfacing deals that allowed for the piss poor construction, I-81, don't exist here. Research Adinizo Construction for further reference in the PA debacle.
Still......the consistent references to "balancing funding" clearly point toward "shortfall", at least in the near term. The weather-related reconstruction expenses obviously didn't help, either. Something tells me that NC will be stretching out its backlog of projects for a number of years -- which will, if history/experience has taught anything, will be as much motivated by intrastate politics as anything. Whether it's I-87, I-42, or the Charlotte-Asheville US 74 (potential I-?) corridor, whoever can make -- and press -- a case for their regional corridor's prioritization will get it moved to the top of the list. But that race may be equivalent to a turtle being faster than a snail, given the likely funding issues in the next decade or so.
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2019, 06:01:00 PM
Quote from: goobnav on August 09, 2019, 11:27:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 11:34:55 PM
Have they been issuing massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects in the last 10 years or so? Rising amounts of debt service taking more and more funding from the TIP? That is what brought PennDOT's construction program to a screeching halt in the 1970s.
NC is under better Management than PA, the side resurfacing deals that allowed for the piss poor construction, I-81, don't exist here. Research Adinizo Construction for further reference in the PA debacle.
Still......the consistent references to "balancing funding" clearly point toward "shortfall", at least in the near term. The weather-related reconstruction expenses obviously didn't help, either. Something tells me that NC will be stretching out its backlog of projects for a number of years -- which will, if history/experience has taught anything, will be as much motivated by intrastate politics as anything. Whether it's I-87, I-42, or the Charlotte-Asheville US 74 (potential I-?) corridor, whoever can make -- and press -- a case for their regional corridor's prioritization will get it moved to the top of the list. But that race may be equivalent to a turtle being faster than a snail, given the likely funding issues in the next decade or so.
I still suspect that the main issue is the secretive issuing of massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects. For awhile there every time you turned around there was another contract award in the range of $100 million, $150 million, $200 million, etc.
That level of debt service payments is what sucked the life out of PennDOT's construction program for at least the next 15 years.
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2019, 06:27:02 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2019, 06:01:00 PM
Quote from: goobnav on August 09, 2019, 11:27:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 11:34:55 PM
Have they been issuing massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects in the last 10 years or so? Rising amounts of debt service taking more and more funding from the TIP? That is what brought PennDOT's construction program to a screeching halt in the 1970s.
NC is under better Management than PA, the side resurfacing deals that allowed for the piss poor construction, I-81, don't exist here. Research Adinizo Construction for further reference in the PA debacle.
Still......the consistent references to "balancing funding" clearly point toward "shortfall", at least in the near term. The weather-related reconstruction expenses obviously didn't help, either. Something tells me that NC will be stretching out its backlog of projects for a number of years -- which will, if history/experience has taught anything, will be as much motivated by intrastate politics as anything. Whether it's I-87, I-42, or the Charlotte-Asheville US 74 (potential I-?) corridor, whoever can make -- and press -- a case for their regional corridor's prioritization will get it moved to the top of the list. But that race may be equivalent to a turtle being faster than a snail, given the likely funding issues in the next decade or so.
I still suspect that the main issue is the secretive issuing of massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects. For awhile there every time you turned around there was another contract award in the range of $100 million, $150 million, $200 million, etc.
That level of debt service payments is what sucked the life out of PennDOT's construction program for at least the next 15 years.
Try like 30 years, remember the gas tax hike that was supposed to pay for bridge and road maintenance was given to the PA State Police.
NC redid it's priority list and got the BS paving of a rep's driveway scheme flushed down the toilet when the General Assembly flipped and despite reports, it won't be flipping back anytime soon, not enough Yankees bringing the northern and western politics to override those either that left that BS behind or the natives and their families.
Interstates could mean business: Main highways to become I-87, I-587 (http://www.springhopeenterprise.com/stories/interstates-could-mean-business,187184)
QuoteBracketed by soon-to-be interstate highways, Bailey, Middlesex and Spring Hope should see unprecedented growth in the coming years, but the drive for retail businesses will be more manual than automatic, according to state and local officials.
"We have to find a way to yank those motorists off the interstates," said state Sen. Rick Horner, a Nash County Republican who also represents part of Johnston County.
Horner said Johnston officials have figured out how to make the best of the interstates running through their towns, and Nash folks should be taking notes.
"Johnston County knows how to milk the interstate," Horner said. "People shop at those outlets, dumping all that sales tax, and drive away without requiring services and schools."
Smithfield has a shopping center on I-95 with more than 75 outlet stores. With the right development, the three southern Nash County towns could see the same type of growth, but it won't happen without hard work, Horner said.
The area is teeming with possibility.
Bailey and Middlesex have exits on U.S. 264, which is set to become I-587 from Zebulon to Greenville.
Bailey Mayor Thomas Richards said there's talk of Hardee's relocating to the U.S. 264 and N.C. 581 exchange. Having the popular fast-food restaurant at the interstate exchange, along with accompanying stores, would be a big boon to Bailey, Richards said.
Spring Hope has an exit on U.S. 64, which is set to become I-87 from Raleigh to Norfolk, Virginia. Signs along U.S. 64 already read "Future I-87."
Nash County Retail Economic Developer Susan Phelps said having interstates running past all three southern Nash municipalities should increase economic development.
Planned years ago, a Bojangles' restaurant at U.S. 64 and N.C. 581 just outside Spring Hope could finally become a reality.
Phelps said the project stalled because it needed other businesses at the multi-development site, which the restaurant franchise still owns.
The interstate just might bring enough traffic for developers to move forward.
"Infrastructure will help with all of that," Phelps said.
Horner said the area already needs another ABC store.
"Maybe that will pull in folks," Horner said.
The real question is whether the new interstates will create more traffic, Horner said.
"The question: What is the economic impact of an interstate designation? The answer: I have no idea," Horner said.
The interstate upgrade and any business growth won't happen overnight.
The completed project, which includes widening traffic lanes and shoulders for both highways, is expected to take two decades, said Andrew Barksdale, a spokesman for the N.C. Department of Transportation's Division 4, which includes Nash, Johnston and Wilson counties.
"Bottom line: We have to widen the paved shoulders and do other minor work to U.S. 264 in Wilson County before it can become I-587," Barksdale said. "However, there is no such project currently planned in the STIP (state transportation improvement plan) from 2020 to 2029 construction. But, this stretch of U.S. 264 is already fully controlled limited access with interchanges."
The newly christened highway will connect Wake County to Greenville, the largest city in North Carolina without interstate access.
"Interstate connectivity plays a key role in business recruitment and retention. This new designation will support greater economic development, improve access to East Carolina University and its medical center, and strengthen regional mobility," then-Gov. Pat McCrory said when he first announced the interstate designation in 2016.
Also in the works is turning U.S. 70, which runs through Johnston County, into I-42 from I-40 to Morehead City.
Southern Nash County doesn't have a specific project on the state transportation books, but Johnston County is well represented.
Bailey Chamber of Commerce President Cecil Hawley said that's because southern Nash didn't have real representation until Horner became its state senator.
Horner won re-election to a second term in the state senate in 2018 to represent a redrawn District 11, which is now made up of Nash County and the northern part of Johnston County. Horner represented Wilson County in his first term.
Horner said Johnston County has several projects happening due to its surging growth.
"It's all that crazy growth in Johnston County," Horner said. "It's a lot of road work the state was ill prepared for. Five miles of 42 will cost $50 million, including a bridge over the Neuse River."
And in case you didn't know, the two I-87's, NJ-87, or NC-87 are not currently planned to be connected.
Live Wire: Roads named '87′ will not link up in New Jersey (or NC) (https://www.the-dispatch.com/news/20190821/live-wire-roads-named-87-will-not-link-up-in-new-jersey-or-nc)
QuoteQ: Will DOT be connecting the southern tip of Interstate 87 with the northern tip of I-87 in New Jersey? If so what cities will be affected? – D.W., Fayetteville
A: After speaking with a contractor from the New Jersey Department of Transportation's traffic engineering team, we learned that Interstate 87, also known as the Major Deegan Expressway, only runs through New York state.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation staff, Interstate 87 runs from New York City north to the Canadian border in Champlain, New York. This piece of interstate passes Yankee Stadium and runs along the New York side of the Hudson River, ending at the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. As stated by NJDOT staff, it is important not to get this Interstate 87 confused with Route 87, a state highway located in Atlantic City, New Jersey, or with the partially completed interstate highway 87 through North Carolina, which currently runs from Raleigh east to Wendell with plans to extend northeast toward Norfolk, Virginia. To add to the confusion, N.C. 87, a state highway, runs from Southport in a generally northwest direction into Virginia, near Eden.
Interstate 87 in New York has no plans to connect with the partially completed interstate highway 87 in the state of North Carolina, nor with Route 87 in New Jersey. I-87 in New York does not plan on a corridor purchase in the foreseeable future and there are no plans to extend it farther south. Motorists on I-87 can connect to multiple highways to travel south into the mid-Atlantic states or east into New England.
Rah rah rah business league boosterism...
I can imagine the conversation on that second one. Reporter calls New Jersey DOT to ask about their I-87 and the person has to explain that the road doesn't even go to NJ... The person must have wanted to respond "So did you look at a map at all before calling me?" Then they somehow get the idea that the whole thing's called the MDE. Just about anyone on this forum could have written a better response without contacting anyone in any DOT...
I-87 should go to NJ... Make the existing I-87 in Yonkers I-287 and have I-87 end on the NJ turnpike. There is no reason for I-87 to go to New York, they already have I-95. I'm not sure if you can extend I-80 to New York!
This is more fictional than southeast, but i wanted to post it since that comment above wants I-87 in NJ.
Never going to happen. Like the two 76s, 84s, 86s, and 88s, the two Interstate 87s will forever remain discontinuous. Given the situation, I think it would be almost impossible to connect Interstate 87 (future) in Norfolk with Interstate 87 in New York City.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2019, 06:11:10 PM
Never going to happen. Like the two 76s, 84s, 86s, and 88s, the two Interstate 87s will forever remain discontinuous. Given the situation, I think it would be almost impossible to connect Interstate 87 (future) in Norfolk with Interstate 87 in New York City.
Unless the route was changed to I-97.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2019, 06:11:10 PM
Never going to happen. Like the two 76s, 84s, 86s, and 88s, the two Interstate 87s will forever remain discontinuous. Given the situation, I think it would be almost impossible to connect Interstate 87 (future) in Norfolk with Interstate 87 in New York City.
Out of all of them, 87 actually has a better chance, if routed over the CBBT, once four laned, and up US 13 to the NJTP, NJ 700, co sign with the I-95 portion of the NJTP across the GWB and connect with the existing I-87.
Anyone who thinks that "87 has a chance" really doesn't understand the Eastern Shore...
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2019, 08:53:04 AM
Anyone who thinks that "87 has a chance" really doesn't understand the Eastern Shore...
97 and 99 are in use but it should really be a 99 if we find a way how to take the existing 99 out of PA. I doubt the two I87s will ever be connected unless the interstate was changed to a different number that's greater than 95 of course.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2019, 08:53:04 AM
Anyone who thinks that "87 has a chance" really doesn't understand the Eastern Shore...
This. Even if you set aside the environmental and cost factors, there's still the political aspect. Northampton County is very NIMBY*. There's no way they would ever support an interstate there.
(*Source: My dad and his people are from Northampton County.)
Setting aside everything!! I-87 would still be a lot closer to it's twin than, I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76 & I-74.
If we want to get nit picky it'll be a cold day in hell if any of them were every connected, just going by geography here people.
Quote from: goobnav on August 24, 2019, 01:58:36 PM
Setting aside everything!! I-87 would still be a lot closer to it's twin than, I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76 & I-74.
If we want to get nit picky it'll be a cold day in hell if any of them were every connected, just going by geography here people.
Should we get rid of the duplicate interstates in the country? Because FritzOwl loves doing it... however, the advantage of the duplicate interstates that they are MILES away from each other so people wouldn't really be confused. Unless there WAS a possible connection, I doubt those interstates would be connected. I-74 was backed out from WV they don't want to build a freeway there.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:09:25 PM
Quote from: goobnav on August 24, 2019, 01:58:36 PM
Setting aside everything!! I-87 would still be a lot closer to it's twin than, I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76 & I-74.
If we want to get nit picky it'll be a cold day in hell if any of them were every connected, just going by geography here people.
Should we get rid of the duplicate interstates in the country? Because FritzOwl loves doing it... however, the advantage of the duplicate interstates that they are MILES away from each other so people wouldn't really be confused. Unless there WAS a possible connection, I doubt those interstates would be connected. I-74 was backed out from WV they don't want to build a freeway there.
The various segments of I-74 in North Carolina are also MILES away from each other.
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2019, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:09:25 PM
Quote from: goobnav on August 24, 2019, 01:58:36 PM
Setting aside everything!! I-87 would still be a lot closer to it's twin than, I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76 & I-74.
If we want to get nit picky it'll be a cold day in hell if any of them were every connected, just going by geography here people.
Should we get rid of the duplicate interstates in the country? Because FritzOwl loves doing it... however, the advantage of the duplicate interstates that they are MILES away from each other so people wouldn't really be confused. Unless there WAS a possible connection, I doubt those interstates would be connected. I-74 was backed out from WV they don't want to build a freeway there.
The various segments of I-74 in North Carolina are also MILES away from each other.
And easily connectable. It's not like trying to connect I-74 at Mt Airy to Ohio.
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2019, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:09:25 PM
Quote from: goobnav on August 24, 2019, 01:58:36 PM
Setting aside everything!! I-87 would still be a lot closer to it's twin than, I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76 & I-74.
If we want to get nit picky it'll be a cold day in hell if any of them were every connected, just going by geography here people.
Should we get rid of the duplicate interstates in the country? Because FritzOwl loves doing it... however, the advantage of the duplicate interstates that they are MILES away from each other so people wouldn't really be confused. Unless there WAS a possible connection, I doubt those interstates would be connected. I-74 was backed out from WV they don't want to build a freeway there.
The various segments of I-74 in North Carolina are also MILES away from each other.
Yeah, but not like over 500 miles.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 09:08:19 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2019, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:09:25 PM
Quote from: goobnav on August 24, 2019, 01:58:36 PM
Setting aside everything!! I-87 would still be a lot closer to it's twin than, I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76 & I-74.
If we want to get nit picky it'll be a cold day in hell if any of them were every connected, just going by geography here people.
Should we get rid of the duplicate interstates in the country? Because FritzOwl loves doing it... however, the advantage of the duplicate interstates that they are MILES away from each other so people wouldn't really be confused. Unless there WAS a possible connection, I doubt those interstates would be connected. I-74 was backed out from WV they don't want to build a freeway there.
The various segments of I-74 in North Carolina are also MILES away from each other.
Yeah, but not like over 500 miles.
The case of I-74 sounds a lot like the case of I-49- it will eventually be connected but there's a ton of small segments ATM.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 02, 2019, 09:32:30 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 09:08:19 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2019, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:09:25 PM
Quote from: goobnav on August 24, 2019, 01:58:36 PM
Setting aside everything!! I-87 would still be a lot closer to it's twin than, I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76 & I-74.
If we want to get nit picky it'll be a cold day in hell if any of them were every connected, just going by geography here people.
Should we get rid of the duplicate interstates in the country? Because FritzOwl loves doing it... however, the advantage of the duplicate interstates that they are MILES away from each other so people wouldn't really be confused. Unless there WAS a possible connection, I doubt those interstates would be connected. I-74 was backed out from WV they don't want to build a freeway there.
The various segments of I-74 in North Carolina are also MILES away from each other.
Yeah, but not like over 500 miles.
The case of I-74 sounds a lot like the case of I-49- it will eventually be connected but there's a ton of small segments ATM.
should have been planned well in the first place because the most significant is Charlotte to Wilmington. There's many gaps.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 02, 2019, 09:32:30 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 09:08:19 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2019, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:09:25 PM
Quote from: goobnav on August 24, 2019, 01:58:36 PM
Setting aside everything!! I-87 would still be a lot closer to it's twin than, I-88, I-86, I-84, I-76 & I-74.
If we want to get nit picky it'll be a cold day in hell if any of them were every connected, just going by geography here people.
Should we get rid of the duplicate interstates in the country? Because FritzOwl loves doing it... however, the advantage of the duplicate interstates that they are MILES away from each other so people wouldn't really be confused. Unless there WAS a possible connection, I doubt those interstates would be connected. I-74 was backed out from WV they don't want to build a freeway there.
The various segments of I-74 in North Carolina are also MILES away from each other.
Yeah, but not like over 500 miles.
The case of I-74 sounds a lot like the case of I-49- it will eventually be connected but there's a ton of small segments ATM.
Maybe in North Carolina, but I don't see the Ohio or West Virginia segments ever being built.
It will be many decades before Interstate 74 in Ohio connects with Interstate 74 in North Carolina (assuming they don't eventually give up trying to connect the two). I'm sure North Carolina's Interstate 87 will eventually be completed to Norfolk, VA. However, it will probably be built/upgraded piece-by-piece, so it might be a few decades before it is completed.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:14:51 PM
I'm sure North Carolina's Interstate 87 will eventually be completed to Norfolk, VA. However, it will probably be built/upgraded piece-by-piece, so it might be a few decades before it is completed.
If it is like eastern I-86, it may not be complete even 50 years from now.
Quote from: Beltway on September 03, 2019, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:14:51 PM
I'm sure North Carolina's Interstate 87 will eventually be completed to Norfolk, VA. However, it will probably be built/upgraded piece-by-piece, so it might be a few decades before it is completed.
If it is like eastern I-86, it may not be complete even 50 years from now.
Being that NC is nothing like NY, I'll say 30 years, especially that most of it is built, so is NY 17 but, it's NY and the politicians spend more on themselves up there than down here.
Quote from: Beltway on September 03, 2019, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:14:51 PM
I'm sure North Carolina's Interstate 87 will eventually be completed to Norfolk, VA. However, it will probably be built/upgraded piece-by-piece, so it might be a few decades before it is completed.
If it is like eastern I-86, it may not be complete even 50 years from now.
Sounds very much like VA I-73... 30 years now and not one piece of it has been built. I'd be surprised if anything begins by 2030. I'll say 30 years for NC I-87. North Carolina is more aggressive when it comes to new freeway construction unlike Virginia or New York. They've built over 600 miles of freeway in the past 40 years and are still continuing. Piece-by-piece but at least it's going.
Quote from: Beltway on September 03, 2019, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:14:51 PM
I'm sure North Carolina's Interstate 87 will eventually be completed to Norfolk, VA. However, it will probably be built/upgraded piece-by-piece, so it might be a few decades before it is completed.
If it is like eastern I-86, it may not be complete even 50 years from now.
20 years is a reasonable estimate.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:14:51 PM
It will be many decades before Interstate 74 in Ohio connects with Interstate 74 in North Carolina (assuming they don't eventually give up trying to connect the two). I'm sure North Carolina's Interstate 87 will eventually be completed to Norfolk, VA. However, it will probably be built/upgraded piece-by-piece, so it might be a few decades before it is completed.
There is no reason for the two I-74's to connect. From Cincinnati, it is quicker to use I-471 south-I-275 west-KY 9/AA Highway south-I-64 east-I-77 south to Bluefield, WV than it would taking the proposed routing of I-74 east out of Cincinnati. Many people don't realize how much of a southeast-northwest trajectory I-77 takes from Charleston to Bluefield. Also, it is the part following US 52 in WV that makes this a fairly useless route for long-distance travel. Plus, the current roads (OH 32, US 52 in OH) are adequate for the amount of traffic currently on them.
I also have said that I-74 in NC should have been numbered I-34. However, where there are politicians involved that do not really understand the grid system, laws on highways are passed with a route number* that isn't even in the ballpark attached to them.
*- IMHO, I-86 was a correct choice as well as I-99 (tomatoes and other produce flung this way). I don't have an issue with I-99 being used as the grand plan is to run from Bedford, PA to Painted Post, NY (and maybe? on to Rochester). Plus, there wasn't any other available numbers other than 67--which also would have upset many grid OCD's. However, politicians
should not be determining route numbers--the states should be submitting possible route numbers to AASHTO^ or FHWA^ for approval.
^- This is not to say that these two entities have not made a mistake or two (see I-87, NC--it should be an I-46, or an I-48, or an I-54, or an I-56, not an odd number on a route that predominantly heads more east-west than north-south). Why it needed to have a number that is already in use in NY is beyond most of our comprehensions--other than the explanation given; that NC was a state in 17
87 and the first English settlement was in Manteo in 15
87. Of course, there could be a converse to this. Does a person in Hampton Roads believe Raleigh is
west of the area or
south of the area? Think about that. I lived in Chesapeake/Portsmouth for 22 years and always had the thought that Raleigh was south of the area--well southwest, but still I would consider I would have to drive south to get to Raleigh.
Quote from: amroad17 on September 04, 2019, 10:20:29 PM
Does a person in Hampton Roads believe Raleigh is west of the area or south of the area? Think about that. I lived in Chesapeake/Portsmouth for 22 years and always had the thought that Raleigh was south of the area--well southwest, but still I would consider I would have to drive south to get to Raleigh.
For me, I'm the same way. Geographically, I know it's westwards, but I always consider it "south" . Same with driving to Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, etc. Unless it's mostly due west from here, such as Asheville, Memphis, Dallas, Los Angeles, etc. I'll usually consider it "north" or "south" .
Then again, I consider Richmond being "north" of here, yet you still take I-64 "west" .
I personally don't have an issue with the I-87 number, though I will agree an east-west number would have fit better.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 03, 2019, 05:23:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 03, 2019, 02:30:04 PM
If it is like eastern I-86, it may not be complete even 50 years from now.
Sounds very much like VA I-73... 30 years now and not one piece of it has been built.
30 years since when? The NEPA EIS process was completed in 2006. 10 miles is built (I-581 and US-220 freeway in Roanoke), and another 11 miles if the US-220 Martinsville Bypass is utilized.
Again, VA I-73 is a $4 billion highway project, and this US-220 corridor was built to 4-lane arterial standards by 1980.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 03, 2019, 05:23:40 PM
I'd be surprised if anything begins by 2030. I'll say 30 years for NC I-87. North Carolina is more aggressive when it comes to new freeway construction unlike Virginia or New York. They've built over 600 miles of freeway in the past 40 years and are still continuing. Piece-by-piece but at least it's going.
Different states and different systems. Virginia was one of the early builders of a statewide system of 4-lane intra-state arterial highways with town and city bypasses to supplement the Interstate highway system, over 1,750 miles, and the principal corridors were completed back in the 1980-1990 range, such as US-29, US-58 east of I-85, US-301/VA-207 north of I-95, VA-7, US-460 Bluefield-Chesapeake, US-23, US-13 Eastern Shore, US-360, US-220 south of I-81, etc., corridors that today might be candidates for new freeways if the existing highways were still mostly 2 lanes and thru towns as in many states back then. The need for a new freeway is non-existent or greatly lessened when a 4-lane intra-state arterial highway is already serving the corridor.
Virginia also has put a lot of focus on Interstate and freeway widening projects over the last 40 years, almost 400 miles completed, and 62 miles currently under construction, and much more to come in the future.
http://www.capital-beltway.com/VA-Freeway-Widening-Projects.xlsm
Defined as widening of a 4-lane or wider freeway. This doesn't include the bridge-tunnels in the Norfolk area other than HRBT Expansion, as the past bridge-tunnel projects on I-264, I-664 and I-64 are defined as original Interstate highway construction, and CBBT parallel crossing is not included either. The massive Springfield Interchange Project didn't really fit into this table either.
Many of these are not just simple widening projects of merely adding one lane each way in the median, but far more complex.
I first saw the headline in the Newport News Daily Times about the soon coming I-73 around 1994.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 05, 2019, 01:43:00 PM
I first saw the headline in the Newport News Daily Times about the soon coming I-73 around 1994.
That is right after the federal transportation bill ISTEA approved the general national corridor.
Individual segments need to go thru the NEPA EIS/location process to refine a corridor within a state.
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2019, 08:23:29 AM
The NEPA EIS process was completed in 2006.
I-73 was written into law in 1991 as apart of the ISTEA, 28 years ago.
VDOT completed a feasibility study for the corridor in March 1994, 25 years ago, 3 years after the corridor was approved.
The NEPA EIS wasn't completed however for an additional 15 years after the corridor was approved, and 12 years after the feasibility study was completed.
Similarly, I-87 was written into law in 2015 as apart of the FAST Act, and two feasibility studies have been completed for upgrading US-64 and US-17 to interstate standards in 2017 and 2018 respectively, 2-3 years after the corridor was approved. That is where it currently stands. Unlike VA I-73 though, there will not be a full NEPA EIS completed for the entire corridor, rather individual segments as they are funded. So far, no individual* segments have been fully funded for upgrade.
*non-freeway segments. The Elizabeth City Bypass has a funded upgrade project that would widen the shoulders to 10 feet in order to meet interstate standards in the early 2020s, similar to the current project underway in New Bern widening the US-70 / Future I-42 freeway shoulders to 10 feet, and one funded on US-264 / Future I-587 between I-95 and Greenville for 2020. Also, a $60 million project set to begin ~2026 would widen 7 miles of the US-64 freeway between I-87's current eastern end to the US-64 (Future I-87) / US-264 (Future I-587) split to 6-lanes, which would be built to full interstate standards. Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2019, 08:23:29 AM
10 miles is built (I-581 and US-220 freeway in Roanoke), and another 11 miles if the US-220 Martinsville Bypass is utilized.
Pre-existing freeways, no construction specifically for I-73. Using that argument, 27 miles of the 80 mile stretch of US-17 already have been built
(11 miles Elizabeth City, 9 miles Edenton, 7 miles Windsor), and of the entire 179 mile corridor, 126 miles
(99 miles US-64, 27 miles US-17) of the 179 mile stretch have already been built, approximately 70% of the corridor.
NCDOT has released its final 2020-2029 STIP, approved today by the NC Transportation Board, press release:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx)
The only bad news I can find so far is that the planned upgrade of US 64/264 from Wendell to their split in Knightdale that was supposed to start in 2025, has been pushed back to 2029.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 05, 2019, 06:25:48 PM
NCDOT has released its final 2020-2029 STIP, approved today by the NC Transportation Board, press release:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx)
The only bad news I can find so far is that the planned upgrade of US 64/264 from Wendell to their split in Knightdale that was supposed to start in 2025, has been pushed back to 2029.
That's a bad stretch. Widening highways and waiting for stuff to happen takes wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too long.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 05, 2019, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 05, 2019, 06:25:48 PM
NCDOT has released its final 2020-2029 STIP, approved today by the NC Transportation Board, press release:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx)
The only bad news I can find so far is that the planned upgrade of US 64/264 from Wendell to their split in Knightdale that was supposed to start in 2025, has been pushed back to 2029.
That's a bad stretch. Widening highways and waiting for stuff to happen takes wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too long.
Reminds me of I-64 between Hampton Roads and Richmond widening to 6 lanes. Still nearly 30 miles unfunded. The lowest AADT is 60,000 and higher in other areas.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 05, 2019, 05:27:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2019, 08:23:29 AM
10 miles is built (I-581 and US-220 freeway in Roanoke), and another 11 miles if the US-220 Martinsville Bypass is utilized.
Pre-existing freeways, no construction specifically for I-73. Using that argument, 27 miles
You are the one who claimed "not one piece of it has been built", I was merely replying to that.
The 10.3 mile segment in Roanoke is 6.8 miles of Interstate highway and 3.5 miles of Interstate designatable highway. It could be I-73 today and that is the approved location.
The 11 miles of US-220 Martinsville Bypass being utilized would depend on revising the approved alternate, which supposedly the city and county governments want. It would need shoulder improvements to use as an Interstate highway.
There is also the US-220 Ridgway Bypass and the US-220 Rocky Mount Bypass, which some states with modest improvements would use as an Interstate segment, but none of the I-73 proposals so far have included them.
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2019, 09:37:13 PM
There is also the US-220 Ridgway Bypass and the US-220 Rocky Mount Bypass, which some states with modest improvements would use as an Interstate segment, but none of the I-73 proposals so far have included them.
The one option for the Martinsville Southern Connector did evaluate upgrading the existing US-220 entirely between US-58 and North Carolina, which would have included the Ridgeway Bypass, however that option was eliminated from further study due to the major impacts it would cause along the rest of the corridor.
The Rocky Mount Bypass could be utilized, though some upgrades would definitely be needed, including...
- The 20 ft median would likely have to be replaced with a paved median & a jersey barrier
(7-9 ft left paved shoulder, 2-4 ft jersey barrier) either that or add 4 foot paved left shoulders and have 12 ft of grass.
- The US-220 southbound bridge over the Pigg River would need to be replaced
- The US-220 / VA-40 interchange would need an overhaul, with at least the US-220 southbound bridge over VA-40 being replaced.
- The north end & south end interchanges would need some upgrades, though because of the remainder of I-73 being on mostly new location and tying in at these points, they'd have to be completely redesigned anyways.
- Most, if not all of the bridges crossing over US-220 would need to be replaced.
- Finally, you'd need to widen the shoulders on the mainline to 10 ft to the outside.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 06, 2019, 11:59:13 AM
The Rocky Mount Bypass could be utilized, though some upgrades would definitely be needed, including...
- The 20 ft median would likely have to be replaced with a paved median & a jersey barrier (7-9 ft left paved shoulder, 2-4 ft jersey barrier) either that or add 4 foot paved left shoulders and have 12 ft of grass.
- The US-220 southbound bridge over the Pigg River would need to be replaced
- The US-220 / VA-40 interchange would need an overhaul, with at least the US-220 southbound bridge over VA-40 being replaced.
- The north end & south end interchanges would need some upgrades, though because of the remainder of I-73 being on mostly new location and tying in at these points, they'd have to be completely redesigned anyways.
- Most, if not all of the bridges crossing over US-220 would need to be replaced.
- Finally, you'd need to widen the shoulders on the mainline to 10 ft to the outside.
That still wouldn't prevent some states from utilizing it with nothing other than providing 10-foot paved right shoulders and the necessary tie-ins at both ends and some minor bridge improvements.
Realistically a non-Interstate freeway dating to 1971 would need extensive upgrades to use for a new Interstate highway.
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2019, 01:08:11 PM
That still wouldn't prevent some states from utilizing it with nothing other than providing 10-foot paved right shoulders and the necessary tie-ins at both ends and some minor bridge improvements.
As long as it meets basic interstate standards, has an interstate cross section, and FHWA approves it, it works. I've seen the practice used in a few different states, especially with newer interstate highways such as I-69, I-49, and I-14.
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2019, 01:08:11 PM
Realistically a non-Interstate freeway dating to 1971 would need extensive upgrades to use for a new Interstate highway.
Just as much upgrades as an interstate highway built in 1971 needs.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 06, 2019, 02:20:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2019, 01:08:11 PM
Realistically a non-Interstate freeway dating to 1971 would need extensive upgrades to use for a new Interstate highway.
Just as much upgrades as an interstate highway built in 1971 needs.
Not necessarily. VA I-85 was completed by 1970 in the "Interstate 3.0 era" and other than a few bridges that don't have 10 foot shoulders meets modern standards. Wide medians, wide clear zones.
Referring to this section which doesn't include the I-85 portion of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (which has had later upgrades).
The 15.2-mile-long section from the North Carolina border to US-1 just north of South Hill opened in Nov. 1965, and this was called the South Hill Bypass at the time. The 21.3-mile-long section from VA-40 at McKenney to US-1 west of Petersburg opened in August 1969, and this joined into the RPT. The 27.9-mile-long section from US-1 just north of South Hill to VA-40 at McKenney opened on Oct. 21, 1970, closing the last gap in I-85 and completing it through Virginia.
It won't need widening any time in the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2019, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 06, 2019, 02:20:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2019, 01:08:11 PM
Realistically a non-Interstate freeway dating to 1971 would need extensive upgrades to use for a new Interstate highway.
Just as much upgrades as an interstate highway built in 1971 needs.
Not necessarily. VA I-85 was completed by 1970 in the "Interstate 3.0 era" and other than a few bridges that don't have 10 foot shoulders meets modern standards.
Referring to this section which doesn't include the I-85 portion of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (which has had later upgrades).
The 15.2-mile-long section from the North Carolina border to US-1 just north of South Hill opened in Nov. 1965, and this was called the South Hill Bypass at the time. The 21.3-mile-long section from VA-40 at McKenney to US-1 west of Petersburg opened in August 1969, and this joined into the RPT. The 27.9-mile-long section from US-1 just north of South Hill to VA-40 at McKenney opened on Oct. 21, 1970, closing the last gap in I-85 and completing it through Virginia.
That's my point really. The Rocky Mount Bypass is an exception, but a lot of 70s non-interstate freeways are still generally in good shape and could be converted into an interstate highway with an upgrade as small as simply widening the shoulders to 10 ft.
For example, a lot of the US-64 and US-264 freeway segments east of Raleigh were built throughout the 70s, and are in good shape. All they really need is shoulder widening plus a couple bridge rehabilitation and replacements here and there.
The ~25 mile US-70 freeway from east of Kinston to New Bern was built in 70s, and is currently undergoing a project to "upgrade to interstate standards" in preparation for when I-42 is brought through there
(it can't be signed until the Kinston bypass is constructed ~2028 connecting it to I-795 however). In reality though, all the project is doing is reconstructing & resurfacing the mainline, adding 10 ft full depth paved outside shoulders, and 4 ft full depth paved inside shoulders. All of the bridges however are remaining in place.
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2019, 02:27:37 PM
It won't need widening any time in the foreseeable future.
It'll be decades before any expansion of I-85 will be warranted between Richmond and Durham. NCDOT just completed a full reconstruction of I-85 from the Virginia border to Henderson including increasing vertical clearance under overpasses to proper standards and replacing mainline bridges, but did not widen the highway. The only stretch I could potentially see is the part between US-460 and I-95, but that's about it. From Durham southwards, that's a different story, but that's not in Virginia.
How about replace the bridges on I-85 between Durham and the Virginia state line?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 07, 2019, 10:21:51 PM
How about replace the bridges on I-85 between Durham and the Virginia state line?
The mainline bridges have been replaced from Henderson northwards. The bridges carrying side roads over I-85 have not been replaced as they are adequate, though the mainline was slightly lowered in order to provide proper vertical clearance.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 08, 2019, 12:02:26 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 07, 2019, 10:21:51 PM
How about replace the bridges on I-85 between Durham and the Virginia state line?
The mainline bridges have been replaced from Henderson northwards. The bridges carrying side roads over I-85 have not been replaced as they are adequate, though the mainline was slightly lowered in order to provide proper vertical clearance.
That won't help if they drive south of Henderson. Trucks are still governed by the lowest bridge on the route.
Quote from: Beltway on September 08, 2019, 12:32:17 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 08, 2019, 12:02:26 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 07, 2019, 10:21:51 PM
How about replace the bridges on I-85 between Durham and the Virginia state line?
The mainline bridges have been replaced from Henderson northwards. The bridges carrying side roads over I-85 have not been replaced as they are adequate, though the mainline was slightly lowered in order to provide proper vertical clearance.
That won't help if they drive south of Henderson. Trucks are still governed by the lowest bridge on the route.
I don't have the exact numbers, but the bridge clearances were lower from Henderson northwards compared to south of Henderson. The segment between Henderson and US-1 near the state line was constructed in 1960 compared to 1971 south of Henderson. The $140 million rehabilitation / vertical clearance project covered that entire 1960 stretch.
The HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee will receive an approximately 10 minute briefing regarding the current status of I-87 in Virginia and updates on Wednesday, September 25.
Nothing I could find online thus far as to what specifically would be discussed.
The FTAC currently has had seeming interest in the corridor, based on multiple mentions of it in past meetings, discussion of potential inclusion in future transportation plans, etc.
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/092019%2000%20Full%20Agenda.pdf
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 11:47:43 PM
Hopefully they won't be passing the pot pipe around.
What if they decide to pursue it and it's put into the 2045 LRTP? The I-87 corridor has been included in a list of potential candidate projects, and something of that size would be a regional project, up there with the I-64 projects, US-58 interchanges, and tunnel expansions.
Then I'll have to go to the meeting(s) and make a public comment.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2019/09/24/major-police-presence-along-us-64-in-zebulon
According to this news article...
I-87 now goes all the way to US-264 in Zebulon, is an east-west highway, and has a mile marker of 436.
There were problems before with news agencies and press releases not recognizing the segment between I-440 and US-64 Business as I-87 as it was designated in 2017, now they've just resorted to calling the entire freeway to at least US-264 as I-87.
It'd be interesting if they did something like I-26 is signed near Asheville, as "Future I-26" but on interstate-style shields and generally known as "I-26", yet not meeting interstate standards and technically not designated I-26 officially, but mostly known as such as opposed to US-23. IIRC, the same was done on US-74 near Rockingham, "Future I-74" shields, but was removed.
Such signage for a "Future I-87" could be extended all the way to Williamston, or at least I-95. Realistically, to actually get I-87 designated officially to at least I-95, they'd simply need to expand the shoulders for the 35 mile stretch. If the $30 million project near New Bern to upgrade 30 miles of freeway to interstate standards & resurface the entire roadway is any indication, plus the upcoming project on US-264 to upgrade it to interstate standards between Greenville and the existing interstate-standard segment connecting to I-795 / I-95, this could be a reasonable project. Other upgrades such as bridge replacements are ultimately needed, but for the interim, a shoulder widening project would bring it up to sufficient standards to be designated an interstate highway. This wouldn't be anything unique, certainly not for North Carolina, it's been a common practice with integrating pre-existing freeway into newer interstate highways. Go another 20 miles east and connect to the interstate-standard freeway between Tarboro and Williamston, you could have I-87 shields spanning the 97 mile stretch between Raleigh and Williamston.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 24, 2019, 06:42:51 PM
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2019/09/24/major-police-presence-along-us-64-in-zebulon
According to this news article...
I-87 now goes all the way to US-264 in Zebulon, is an east-west highway, and has a mile marker of 436.
There were problems before with news agencies and press releases not recognizing the segment between I-440 and US-64 Business as I-87 as it was designated in 2017, now they've just resorted to calling the entire freeway to at least US-264 as I-87.
It'd be interesting if they did something like I-26 is signed near Asheville, as "Future I-26" but on interstate-style shields and generally known as "I-26", yet not meeting interstate standards and technically not designated I-26 officially, but mostly known as such as opposed to US-23. IIRC, the same was done on US-74 near Rockingham, "Future I-74" shields, but was removed.
Such signage for a "Future I-87" could be extended all the way to Williamston, or at least I-95. Realistically, to actually get I-87 designated officially to at least I-95, they'd simply need to expand the shoulders for the 35 mile stretch. If the $30 million project near New Bern to upgrade 30 miles of freeway to interstate standards & resurface the entire roadway is any indication, plus the upcoming project on US-264 to upgrade it to interstate standards between Greenville and the existing interstate-standard segment connecting to I-795 / I-95, this could be a reasonable project. Other upgrades such as bridge replacements are ultimately needed, but for the interim, a shoulder widening project would bring it up to sufficient standards to be designated an interstate highway. This wouldn't be anything unique, certainly not for North Carolina, it's been a common practice with integrating pre-existing freeway into newer interstate highways. Go another 20 miles east and connect to the interstate-standard freeway between Tarboro and Williamston, you could have I-87 shields spanning the 97 mile stretch between Raleigh and Williamston.
Not so simple, past the 264/Future 587 split, there are several bridges recommended for replacement, for both clearance and to widen, thank you bob7374:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 11:47:43 PM
Hopefully they won't be passing the pot pipe around.
I hope they take a lot of pot and overdose.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 25, 2019, 10:23:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 11:47:43 PM
Hopefully they won't be passing the pot pipe around.
I hope they take a lot of pot and overdose.
The problem is that some of that pot has PCP and meth and coke and ecstasy worked into it.
They don't know until they have smoked it.
Google Streetview is now showing the new BGS's with I-87 shields on westbound I-440 and the Knightdale Bypass.
Quote from: LM117 on October 18, 2019, 06:16:39 PM
Google Streetview is now showing the new BGS's with I-87 shields on westbound I-440 and the Knightdale Bypass.
It appears there's updated Street View on Poole Rd (the interchange just prior to the I-87 / I-440 split) from July 2019, and ground-mounted I-440 shields at the ramp entrances have been replaced with ground-mounted guide signage indicating I-87, I-440, and US-64 on all approaches, along with Rocky Mount as the northbound control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7678653,-78.5734517,3a,37.5y,129.35h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seNuFLpDkigSD1_VEjolXAw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Signage has also been posted from the I-440 East approach indicating I-87, I-440, and US-64.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7879078,-78.5744949,3a,75y,157.88h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su_lS6v5OZPGnVIsSLD0_mA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Does anybody know if VDOT ever finished their study of I-87 or if it was postponed?
From October 8, 2017:
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/08/NCDOT-mulls-I-87-route-to-Currituck.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/08/NCDOT-mulls-I-87-route-to-Currituck.html)
QuoteVirginia Transportation Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick said in an email Friday that Virginia Department of Transportation have discussed the proposed I-87 with their counterparts in North Carolina.
"We have also discussed the corridor with NCDOT leadership about a year ago," Kilpatrick said. "They made us aware of this east-west connector option and the connection to Virginia Route 168 near the state line."
Asked if he had any preference about the route for I-87, he indicated VDOT isn't close to any decision yet.
"We have not yet engaged the interested parties regarding potential alignments. We are just beginning the study process," he said.
Quote from: LM117 on October 20, 2019, 10:55:38 AM
Does anybody know if VDOT ever finished their study of I-87 or if it was postponed?
From October 8, 2017:
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/08/NCDOT-mulls-I-87-route-to-Currituck.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/08/NCDOT-mulls-I-87-route-to-Currituck.html)
QuoteVirginia Transportation Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick said in an email Friday that Virginia Department of Transportation have discussed the proposed I-87 with their counterparts in North Carolina.
"We have also discussed the corridor with NCDOT leadership about a year ago," Kilpatrick said. "They made us aware of this east-west connector option and the connection to Virginia Route 168 near the state line."
Asked if he had any preference about the route for I-87, he indicated VDOT isn't close to any decision yet.
"We have not yet engaged the interested parties regarding potential alignments. We are just beginning the study process," he said.
I haven't been able to find much information on VDOT's study of I-87.
In December 2017, a memorandum (http://files.constantcontact.com/2d09bb17be/38bd3e8d-7938-4453-ac21-829bfcf0f481.pdf) was sent to Chesapeake city council that discussed the proposed interstate and the initiation to the "Route 17 Interchange Feasibility Study", and is probably the most detailed document I've so far been able to find regarding I-87 in Virginia. Since this, there's been no official documentation released regarding any updates, developments, etc. with this "study".
QuoteThis memorandum is provided in response to a recent inquiry by City Council regarding potential impacts to development patterns along the Dominion Boulevard corridor resulting from the proposed upgrade of Route 17 to interstate status (i.e. Interstate I-87). In particular, Council was interested in where the interstate interchanges might be located and how this could affect planned development under the adopted Dominion Boulevard Corridor Study & Economic Development Strategic Plan.
The Dominion Boulevard Corridor Study was adopted by City Council on November 15, 2016 following a nearly three year planning process, including significant stakeholder input. While the construction of the Dominion Boulevard Bridge Replacement & Roadway Improvement Project was the primary catalyst for the Study, efforts by many stakeholders in North Carolina and Virginia to upgrade Route 17 to interstate status also factored into the Study's strategic economic development recommendations. The Study contains a number of direct references to the proposed interstate.
The Study's master land use plan, proposed street network, stormwater management, and other planning frameworks contemplated possible interstate interchanges along Dominion Boulevard, based on existing and planned traffic intersections allowed under the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Access Management Plan for Route 17. The Study planning team tried to cluster more non-residential land uses around possible interchange locations in the two urban core development areas. The proposed street network also makes accommodations for traffic circulation in the vicinity of possible interstate interchanges, in order to maintain internal connections within the study area and to surrounding neighborhoods.
It was mentioned during City Council's October 10, 2017 Work Session recap of the September Council Retreat that public meetings/hearings should be held to facilitate identification of interchange locations and appropriate land uses around them. It was mentioned that revisions to the Dominion Boulevard Corridor Study might also be needed to better promote commercial uses. In this regard, at the City's request, the Hampton Roads District Office of VDOT has agreed to take the lead in initiating a feasibility study to identify the general limits and future interchanges along the Dominion Boulevard/Route 17 corridor. The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is also being requested to participate in the study.
City staff will maintain contact with VDOT and HRTPO to facilitate initiation of the Route 17 interstate interchange feasibility study and will be prepared to help coordinate the study's implementation, including organizing and promoting citizen input opportunities. Staff will keep City Council apprised of key upcoming steps in this process once formulated. The feasibility study should provide valuable guidance as to the need to amend the 2035 Comprehensive Plan to revise the Dominion Boulevard Corridor Study.
There's been a lot of support / interest in the corridor from the HRTPO's Freight Transportation Advisory Committee, and the latest mention of I-87 in Virginia comes from their September 25, 2019 meeting where an update was presented, though I've not been able to find anything on what specific "updates" were talked about as there's been no minutes published. If previous minutes from meetings by the FTAC are any indication, minutes from this meeting will be released sometime in January - February 2020.
So far, the entire study process for I-87 in Virginia seems to be closed door talks that gets mentioned in documentation every once and a while. Hopefully within a year there will more detailed information / potential plans & alternatives released publicly.
^ Thanks for the 411!
Two major projects along I-87 in the Raleigh area have been suspended indefinitely for any preliminary engineering activities with the ongoing funding issues around the state.
I-6005 - Widening I-87 from 4 to 6 lanes between US-64 Business and US-264.
I-6007 - Conversion of Exit 9 (Smithfield Rd) to a diverging diamond interchange.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Project-Management/Documents/Suspension%20Memo%20List%20-%20Revised%20%28November%201%2c%202019%29%20by%20County.pdf
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 04, 2019, 05:18:31 PM
Two major projects along I-87 in the Raleigh area have been suspended indefinitely for any preliminary engineering activities with the ongoing funding issues around the state.
I-6005 - Widening I-87 from 4 to 6 lanes between US-64 Business and US-264.
I-6007 - Conversion of Exit 9 (Smithfield Rd) to a diverging diamond interchange.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Project-Management/Documents/Suspension%20Memo%20List%20-%20Revised%20%28November%201%2c%202019%29%20by%20County.pdf
Damn. That widening project is badly needed.
I just went to your link. I found the NCDot title confusing, are the items that are scratched out back in progress?
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 04, 2019, 06:14:35 PM
I just went to your link. I found the NCDot title confusing, are the items that are scratched out back in progress?
Yes.
Thank you, oddly that little bridge job in Burke over Rock Creek is walking distance from my home.
Article from the Rocky Mount Telegram this morning regarding I-87.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/10/Completion-of-I-87-project-remains-years-away.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/10/Completion-of-I-87-project-remains-years-away.html)
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
Honestly, I don't get how that stuff (like in the picture in the article) is acceptable. Is their budget really so underfunded that they can't pay for sign replacements?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 12, 2019, 07:15:13 AM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
Honestly, I don't get how that stuff (like in the picture in the article) is acceptable. Is their budget really so underfunded that they can't pay for sign replacements?
More likely a combination of laziness and being cheap. The recent funding problem just makes for a nice cop-out, IMO. Hell, when the then-US-117 freeway between Wilson and Goldsboro became I-795 in 2007, signs weren't changed until early 2010...unless you count I-795 trailblazers, which was all there was between 2007 and 2010.
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
Loved the reference to "big green signs" in the story. So i guess it's not just a roadgeek term anymore?
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 07:37:29 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 12, 2019, 07:15:13 AM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
Honestly, I don't get how that stuff (like in the picture in the article) is acceptable. Is their budget really so underfunded that they can't pay for sign replacements?
More likely a combination of laziness and being cheap. The recent funding problem just makes for a nice cop-out, IMO. Hell, when the then-US-117 freeway between Wilson and Goldsboro became I-795 in 2007, signs weren't changed until early 2010...unless you count I-795 trailblazers, which was all there was between 2007 and 2010.
If NC has a funding problem, perhaps they shouldn't be requesting all these additional interstates. Focus on maintaining your system and what's on your plate before taking on pie in the sky proposals.
Quote from: vdeane on November 12, 2019, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 07:37:29 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 12, 2019, 07:15:13 AM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
Honestly, I don't get how that stuff (like in the picture in the article) is acceptable. Is their budget really so underfunded that they can't pay for sign replacements?
More likely a combination of laziness and being cheap. The recent funding problem just makes for a nice cop-out, IMO. Hell, when the then-US-117 freeway between Wilson and Goldsboro became I-795 in 2007, signs weren't changed until early 2010...unless you count I-795 trailblazers, which was all there was between 2007 and 2010.
If NC has a funding problem, perhaps they shouldn't be requesting all these additional interstates. Focus on maintaining your system and what's on your plate before taking on pie in the sky proposals.
Lack of money was written on the walls, but alas, NCDOT couldn't read......
Quote from: vdeane on November 12, 2019, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 07:37:29 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 12, 2019, 07:15:13 AM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
Honestly, I don't get how that stuff (like in the picture in the article) is acceptable. Is their budget really so underfunded that they can't pay for sign replacements?
More likely a combination of laziness and being cheap. The recent funding problem just makes for a nice cop-out, IMO. Hell, when the then-US-117 freeway between Wilson and Goldsboro became I-795 in 2007, signs weren't changed until early 2010...unless you count I-795 trailblazers, which was all there was between 2007 and 2010.
If NC has a funding problem, perhaps they shouldn't be requesting all these additional interstates. Focus on maintaining your system and what's on your plate before taking on pie in the sky proposals.
That has NOTHING to do with additional interstates. One of the reasons why NC has a funding problem is because the Map Act was stuck down by the courts and the landowners for the properties taken by NCDOT asks for their share of money. They're going through a settlement that costs about billions of dollars. Please do some research first.
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
The link to the article is broken. Even after searching on Google, it still comes broken...
Site down?
What was in the article?
Quote from: Strider on November 12, 2019, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 12, 2019, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 07:37:29 AM
More likely a combination of laziness and being cheap. The recent funding problem just makes for a nice cop-out, IMO. Hell, when the then-US-117 freeway between Wilson and Goldsboro became I-795 in 2007, signs weren't changed until early 2010...unless you count I-795 trailblazers, which was all there was between 2007 and 2010.
If NC has a funding problem, perhaps they shouldn't be requesting all these additional interstates. Focus on maintaining your system and what's on your plate before taking on pie in the sky proposals.
That has NOTHING to do with additional interstates. One of the reasons why NC has a funding problem is because the Map Act was stuck down by the courts and the landowners for the properties taken by NCDOT asks for their share of money. They're going through a settlement that costs about billions of dollars. Please do some research first.
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
Quote from: Strider on November 12, 2019, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 12, 2019, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 07:37:29 AM
More likely a combination of laziness and being cheap. The recent funding problem just makes for a nice cop-out, IMO. Hell, when the then-US-117 freeway between Wilson and Goldsboro became I-795 in 2007, signs weren't changed until early 2010...unless you count I-795 trailblazers, which was all there was between 2007 and 2010.
If NC has a funding problem, perhaps they shouldn't be requesting all these additional interstates. Focus on maintaining your system and what's on your plate before taking on pie in the sky proposals.
That has NOTHING to do with additional interstates. One of the reasons why NC has a funding problem is because the Map Act was stuck down by the courts and the landowners for the properties taken by NCDOT asks for their share of money. They're going through a settlement that costs about billions of dollars. Please do some research first.
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Source?
And in fairness, it's no better up here if that's what you're trying to get at.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Source?
And in fairness, it's no better up here if that's what you're trying to get at.
I think they are hiding / not publicizing the level of bonding, and trying to build Vanity Interstate Highways.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Source?
And in fairness, it's no better up here if that's what you're trying to get at.
I think they are hiding / not publicizing the level of bonding, and trying to build Vanity Interstate Highways.
At least we aren't Pennsylvania......
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Source?
And in fairness, it's no better up here if that's what you're trying to get at.
I think they are hiding / not publicizing the level of bonding, and trying to build Vanity Interstate Highways.
Except I-87, the highway you call vanity, hasn't been built yet. Are you calling all of the recent projects - 6-8 lane widenings on major freeways, I-140 beltway, I-840 beltway, I-74 / I-274 beltway, I-295 beltway, I-540 beltway, I-485 beltway, and the ~600 miles of freeway non-federal funded that have been built since the 80s vanity? The proposed projects like I-40 widening, Complete 540, I-85 widening, I-95 widening, all vanity?
It's interesting because the Build NC bond has lately been accelerating a decent amount of projects that have fallen short.
You "think" they are hiding stuff, but you have no solid proof. It's merely a bias guess.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:48:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Source?
And in fairness, it's no better up here if that's what you're trying to get at.
I think they are hiding / not publicizing the level of bonding, and trying to build Vanity Interstate Highways.
Except I-87, the highway you call vanity, hasn't been built yet. Are you calling all of the recent projects - 6-8 lane widenings on major freeways, I-140 beltway, I-840 beltway, I-74 / I-274 beltway, I-295 beltway, I-540 beltway, I-485 beltway, and the ~600 miles of freeway non-federal funded that have been built since the 80s vanity?
Only one you could really put in that category is I-74/274, but even that is more of a lack of foresight than anything.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
Quote from: Strider on November 12, 2019, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 12, 2019, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 07:37:29 AM
More likely a combination of laziness and being cheap. The recent funding problem just makes for a nice cop-out, IMO. Hell, when the then-US-117 freeway between Wilson and Goldsboro became I-795 in 2007, signs weren't changed until early 2010...unless you count I-795 trailblazers, which was all there was between 2007 and 2010.
If NC has a funding problem, perhaps they shouldn't be requesting all these additional interstates. Focus on maintaining your system and what's on your plate before taking on pie in the sky proposals.
That has NOTHING to do with additional interstates. One of the reasons why NC has a funding problem is because the Map Act was stuck down by the courts and the landowners for the properties taken by NCDOT asks for their share of money. They're going through a settlement that costs about billions of dollars. Please do some research first.
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Yeah, at least we can afford it without tolling every other project and fleecing the taxpayers by selling to the biggest contributor, I mean highest bidder, :). Y'all have no idea what's about to happen in the Commonwealth.
VA is about to get crushed with taxes for obligations made out of thin air, or in the New Peoples House of Delegates ideas, for better of the Commonwealth. When your gas taxes go up, yes, even more than they are now and are more than NC's but, you still have all those tolls tell me who is the better management of the funding.
Quote from: goobnav on November 12, 2019, 04:50:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
Quote from: Strider on November 12, 2019, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 12, 2019, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 07:37:29 AM
More likely a combination of laziness and being cheap. The recent funding problem just makes for a nice cop-out, IMO. Hell, when the then-US-117 freeway between Wilson and Goldsboro became I-795 in 2007, signs weren't changed until early 2010...unless you count I-795 trailblazers, which was all there was between 2007 and 2010.
If NC has a funding problem, perhaps they shouldn't be requesting all these additional interstates. Focus on maintaining your system and what's on your plate before taking on pie in the sky proposals.
That has NOTHING to do with additional interstates. One of the reasons why NC has a funding problem is because the Map Act was stuck down by the courts and the landowners for the properties taken by NCDOT asks for their share of money. They're going through a settlement that costs about billions of dollars. Please do some research first.
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Yeah, at least we can afford it without tolling every other project and fleecing the taxpayers by selling to the biggest contributor, I mean highest bidder, :). Y'all have no idea what's about to happen in the Commonwealth.
VA is about to get crushed with taxes for obligations made out of thin air, or in the New Peoples House of Delegates ideas, for better of the Commonwealth. When your gas taxes go up, yes, even more than they are now and are more than NC's but, you still have all those tolls tell me who is the better management of the funding.
Hey, HO/T lanes fix everything in this state :biggrin:
At least NCDOT isn't giving half of its projects off to private companies because VDOT can't actually afford it themselves. The City of Chesapeake had to undertake about $500 million worth of projects, upgrading Dominion Blvd into an urban freeway & building a high rise bridge, and constructing the 10 mile Chesapeake Expressway and take out bonds to fund it, all because VDOT couldn't even do that. A city, a locality, building and managing an entire freeway.
I-95 is still 6-lanes. I-81 and I-64 are still only 4-lanes. I-73 is still a paper highway in Virginia and South Carolina yet North Carolina has built 90% of its portion, and that's looking at statewide issues. I'm not even talking about the urban congestion issues, which is horrendous, notably Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.
Like I said above, this state is in no better shape.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 12, 2019, 04:44:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Source?
And in fairness, it's no better up here if that's what you're trying to get at.
I think they are hiding / not publicizing the level of bonding, and trying to build Vanity Interstate Highways.
At least we aren't Pennsylvania......
Definitely not, we didn't take the gas tax increase for bridges and roads and give to the State Police, NC is building and repairing infrastructure per the law it was written for and has to be amended to change.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:24:34 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
The link to the article is broken. Even after searching on Google, it still comes broken...
Site down?
What was in the article?
Yeah, I noticed it too just now. Apparently, they changed the website layout after I posted the link and now I can't find it either.
Anyway, the gist of it is that the signs on US-64 in Nash County, particularly in the Nashville/Momeyer area, are in really bad shape (one of which has half missing) and NCDOT is blaming the funding problem for not fixing/replacing them even though some of the signs had been in poor shape for a long time.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:51:44 PM
Quote from: goobnav on November 12, 2019, 04:50:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
Quote from: Strider on November 12, 2019, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 12, 2019, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 07:37:29 AM
More likely a combination of laziness and being cheap. The recent funding problem just makes for a nice cop-out, IMO. Hell, when the then-US-117 freeway between Wilson and Goldsboro became I-795 in 2007, signs weren't changed until early 2010...unless you count I-795 trailblazers, which was all there was between 2007 and 2010.
If NC has a funding problem, perhaps they shouldn't be requesting all these additional interstates. Focus on maintaining your system and what's on your plate before taking on pie in the sky proposals.
That has NOTHING to do with additional interstates. One of the reasons why NC has a funding problem is because the Map Act was stuck down by the courts and the landowners for the properties taken by NCDOT asks for their share of money. They're going through a settlement that costs about billions of dollars. Please do some research first.
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Yeah, at least we can afford it without tolling every other project and fleecing the taxpayers by selling to the biggest contributor, I mean highest bidder, :). Y'all have no idea what's about to happen in the Commonwealth.
VA is about to get crushed with taxes for obligations made out of thin air, or in the New Peoples House of Delegates ideas, for better of the Commonwealth. When your gas taxes go up, yes, even more than they are now and are more than NC's but, you still have all those tolls tell me who is the better management of the funding.
Hey, HO/T lanes fix everything in this state :biggrin:
At least NCDOT isn't giving half of its projects off to private companies because VDOT can't actually afford it themselves. The City of Chesapeake had to undertake about $500 million worth of projects, upgrading Dominion Blvd into an urban freeway & building a high rise bridge, and constructing the 10 mile Chesapeake Expressway and take out bonds to fund it, all because VDOT couldn't even do that. A city, a locality, building and managing an entire freeway.
Like I said above, this state is in no better shape.
I truly feel sorry for VA, was a pretty state and had some pretty decent roads, now, just try to get through it as fast and legally as possible.
Quote from: goobnav on November 12, 2019, 04:53:21 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 12, 2019, 04:44:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 04:34:45 PM
The NCDOT whines about the Map Act and the recent tropical storms being the cause for the massive shortfalls, is well, a whine. They are way over aggressive in some of their plans, and they are probably floating billions of dollars of general obligation bond issues that they are hiding from scrutiny, and the rising levels of debt service is taking more money out of the budget.
Source?
And in fairness, it's no better up here if that's what you're trying to get at.
I think they are hiding / not publicizing the level of bonding, and trying to build Vanity Interstate Highways.
At least we aren't Pennsylvania......
Definitely not, we didn't take the gas tax increase for bridges and roads and give to the State Police, NC is building and repairing infrastructure per the law it was written for and has to be amended to change.
That and we didnt build the Bud Shuster Pork Barrel Freeway to Nowhere (looking at you, I-99)
Quote from: goobnav on November 12, 2019, 04:55:01 PM
I truly feel sorry for VA, was a pretty state and had some pretty decent roads, now, just try to get through it as fast and legally as possible.
If you're not stuck behind truck after truck on 4-lane I-81 for miles. Or sitting at 5 mph on I-95 and I-64.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:48:01 PM
You "think" they are hiding stuff, but you have no solid proof. It's merely a bias guess.
That's the problem when they are hiding stuff, it makes it difficult or impossible to prove, at least in the short-term.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 12, 2019, 04:49:57 PM
Only one you could really put in that category is I-74/274, but even that is more of a lack of foresight than anything.
I wouldn't really call I-74 "vanity". The US-52 freeway corridor is a bottleneck thru Winston-Salem, and I-74 will provide a bypass of the city for southwestern Virginia -> central NC thru traffic.
I-274 is debatable.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:57:06 PM
Quote from: goobnav on November 12, 2019, 04:55:01 PM
I truly feel sorry for VA, was a pretty state and had some pretty decent roads, now, just try to get through it as fast and legally as possible.
If you're not stuck behind truck after truck on 4-lane I-81 for miles. Or sitting at 5 mph on I-95 and I-64.
If Virginia isnt going to put 81 to 6+ lanes, then they could at the very least upgrade the U.S. 29 corridor as they should have done a long time ago. If they had a middle freeway/interstate from D.C. to Charlottesville/Lynchburg/Danville, it'd take a lot of congestion off of not only 81 but also 95.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:48:01 PM
You "think" they are hiding stuff, but you have no solid proof. It's merely a bias guess.
That's the problem when they are hiding stuff, it makes it difficult or impossible to prove, at least in the short-term.
Let's take a look at Virginia - spending $250 million on a freeway that never even got built. Or $200 million on a canceled long-distance freeway bypass to instead upgrade an urban road for local traffic.
That's not even including the debt the state has. I'd like to see those figures, and how much they're sinking in now, especially with the many projects being accelerated, like I-81, I-64, I-95
(well, that's not an issue since Transurban is building all of it), Hampton Roads urban projects worth over $1 billion, another at least $1 billion for proposed HO/T lanes, and so on.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 12, 2019, 05:04:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:57:06 PM
Quote from: goobnav on November 12, 2019, 04:55:01 PM
I truly feel sorry for VA, was a pretty state and had some pretty decent roads, now, just try to get through it as fast and legally as possible.
If you're not stuck behind truck after truck on 4-lane I-81 for miles. Or sitting at 5 mph on I-95 and I-64.
If Virginia isnt going to put 81 to 6+ lanes, then they could at the very least upgrade the U.S. 29 corridor as they should have done a long time ago. If they had a middle freeway/interstate from D.C. to Charlottesville/Lynchburg/Danville, it'd take a lot of congestion off of not only 81 but also 95.
VDOT is scratching it's head trying to find a mere 6 mile stretch of I-73 south of Martinsville, which is estimated at over $600 million.
At least North Carolina is finishing its part of US-29 between Greensboro - Danville.
VDOT is going to build innovative intersections :-o
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:51:44 PM
I-95 is still 6-lanes. I-81 and I-64 are still only 4-lanes. I-73 is still a paper highway in Virginia and South Carolina yet North Carolina has built 90% of its portion, and that's looking at statewide issues. I'm not even talking about the urban congestion issues, which is horrendous, notably Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.
Get back to us when N.C. has projects of this magnitude and cost to build --
I-64 H.R. bridge-tunnels and expansions
I-664 H.R. bridge-tunnel
I-264 bridge-tunnel
Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
WWB Project
Shirley Highway and various expansions and Springfield Interchange
12-lane Beltway
Metrorail ($1.5 billion for the 30 miles 1969-1991, $5.8 billion for 23 miles Dulles line).
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 05:06:11 PM
Let's take a look at Virginia - spending $250 million on a freeway that never even got built. Or $200 million on a canceled long-distance freeway bypass to instead upgrade an urban road for local traffic.
Terry McAullife's corruption and his party, as I have documented in depth.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 12, 2019, 05:04:20 PM
If Virginia isnt going to put 81 to 6+ lanes, then they could at the very least upgrade the U.S. 29 corridor as they should have done a long time ago. If they had a middle freeway/interstate from D.C. to Charlottesville/Lynchburg/Danville, it'd take a lot of congestion off of not only 81 but also 95.
Albemarle County / Charlottesville obstructionism stands in the way, as I have documented in the past.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:48:01 PM
You "think" they are hiding stuff, but you have no solid proof. It's merely a bias guess.
That's the problem when they are hiding stuff, it makes it difficult or impossible to prove, at least in the short-term.
That's not even including the debt the state has. I'd like to see those figures, and how much they're sinking in now, especially with the many projects being accelerated, like I-81, I-64, I-95 (well, that's not an issue since Transurban is building all of it), Hampton Roads urban projects worth over $1 billion, another at least $1 billion for proposed HO/T lanes, and so on.
Virginia has been open and transparent enough about their bond funding levels, which are considerable.
But you would rather point the finger at someone else than address N.C..
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:08:14 PM
Get back to us when N.C. has projects of this magnitude and cost to build --
I-64 H.R. bridge-tunnels and expansions
I-664 H.R. bridge-tunnel
I-264 bridge-tunnel
WWB Project
Shirley Highway and various expansions and Springfield Interchange
All projects mainly federally funded, little from Virginia itself. Your website (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Woodrow_Wilson_Bridge.html#Cost_and_Funding) indicates that Virginia only paid a mere $200 million out of the $2 billion project. Your website (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html) also indicates that Virginia only paid 10% in the Springfield Interchange expansion (a mere $67 million), the rest federal aid.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:08:14 PM
12-lane Beltway
Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Metrorail ($1.5 billion for the 30 miles 1969-1991, $5.8 billion for 23 miles Dulles line).
Largely toll financed / privatized monies.
What massive undertakings in the state were largely state funded? All of these massive projects received massive amounts of federal aid, something little of North Carolina's projects did. I'd argue North Carolina has spent more on construction than Virginia has strictly looking at state tax-dollars.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:10:19 PM
Terry McAullife's corruption and his party, as I have documented in depth.
Doesn't matter, it's still all apart of the overall funding. A lot of the ongoing issues in North Carolina right now point back to the General Assembly, but I guess we don't consider that when it's not about the Commonwealth? We get a pass for all that?
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:11:56 PM
Albemarle County / Charlottesville obstructionism stands in the way, as I have documented in the past.
Yes, Albemarle County / Charlottesville are the sole reason VDOT isn't building a 200+ US-29 freeway? If they weren't an issue, the corridor would be under construction from Danville to DC?
Like I mentioned before, VDOT is scratching their heads to fund 6-miles of rural freeway that they project will cost north of $600 million.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:14:45 PM
But you would rather point the finger at someone else than address N.C..
Aren't you doing the same thing pointing your finger solely at NC for an ongoing funding issue, and ignoring the countless issues in Virginia?
Looking at state tax-dollar funding, North Carolina has had far more success IMO than Virginia has with freeway construction projects since the 80s, and has built hundreds more miles than Virginia has. Your issues with the state seem to stem from the fact North Carolina wants to extend their statewide freeway system and link the northeastern part of the state to the rest of the state via a 70 mph freeway and providing an
alternative (since you claim 0% of traffic will shift from US-58) interstate-grade routing from Hampton Roads to the south
(something else VDOT has failed to provide along a more direct corridor, and as far as I'm aware, no Albemarle County is preventing its construction) something that may be foreign in Virginia, but isn't in North Carolina, and your main reasons for strongly opposing it is because it doesn't meet -Virginia's- standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 12, 2019, 04:49:57 PM
Only one you could really put in that category is I-74/274, but even that is more of a lack of foresight than anything.
I wouldn't really call I-74 "vanity". The US-52 freeway corridor is a bottleneck thru Winston-Salem, and I-74 will provide a bypass of the city for southwestern Virginia -> central NC thru traffic.
I-274 is debatable.
74 through Winston is not vanity, for sure. The long multiplex with 73 still makes my eye twitch, though. If I were charge, I'd have sent 74 on its proposed route in W-S, then have it curve around to meet I-285. 74 would take over 285 to Lexington, where it would then go on a new-terrain sector past Denton to U.S. 52 at New London, then past Albemarle to Norwood, then another new-terrain sector to Rockingham, then on it's current routing to Wilmington/Myrtle Beach
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 12, 2019, 05:29:39 PM
74 through Winston is not vanity, for sure. The long multiplex with 73 still makes my eye twitch, though. If I were charge, I'd have sent 74 on its proposed route in W-S, then have it curve around to meet I-285. 74 would take over 285 to Lexington, where it would then go on a new-terrain sector past Denton to U.S. 52 at New London, then past Albemarle to Norwood, then another new-terrain sector to Rockingham, then on it's current routing to Wilmington/Myrtle Beach
The only thing that is an issue with the I-74 routing is merely that - the path that the designation I-74 follows. The actual freeways built don't change.
And not to sound offensive, but the proposal you lay out for a re-routed I-74 seem to be more vanity than a few on this forum call I-87.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 05:31:53 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 12, 2019, 05:29:39 PM
74 through Winston is not vanity, for sure. The long multiplex with 73 still makes my eye twitch, though. If I were charge, I'd have sent 74 on its proposed route in W-S, then have it curve around to meet I-285. 74 would take over 285 to Lexington, where it would then go on a new-terrain sector past Denton to U.S. 52 at New London, then past Albemarle to Norwood, then another new-terrain sector to Rockingham, then on it's current routing to Wilmington/Myrtle Beach
The only thing that is an issue with the I-74 routing is merely that - the path that the designation I-74 follows. The actual freeways built don't change.
And not to sound offensive, but the proposal you lay out for a re-routed I-74 seem to be more vanity than a few on this forum call I-87.
I put the routing where it is to avoid that multiplex that really doesnt need to be a multplex. 73 and 74 through this state should be their own separate routes, instead of sharing a route for 30+ miles.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:08:14 PM
Get back to us when N.C. has projects of this magnitude and cost to build --
I-64 H.R. bridge-tunnels and expansions
I-664 H.R. bridge-tunnel
I-264 bridge-tunnel
WWB Project
Shirley Highway and various expansions and Springfield Interchange
All projects mainly federally funded, little from Virginia itself. Your website (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Woodrow_Wilson_Bridge.html#Cost_and_Funding) indicates that Virginia only paid a mere $200 million out of the $2 billion project. Your website (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html) also indicates that Virginia only paid 10% in the Springfield Interchange expansion (a mere $67 million), the rest federal aid.
Not sure what is the point.
Those projects took a lot of efforts for the state to obtain the approvals for Interstate highway new construction funding. Plus 10% of a megaproject is still a large sum.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:08:14 PM
12-lane Beltway
Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
Metrorail ($1.5 billion for the 30 miles 1969-1991, $5.8 billion for 23 miles Dulles line).
Largely toll financed / privatized monies.
Not Metrorail, a combination of federal, state and local tax dollars.
How many places have built 52 miles of rapid heavy rail transit?
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 05:16:50 PM
What massive undertakings in the state were largely state funded? All of these massive projects received massive amounts of federal aid, something little of North Carolina's projects did. I'd argue North Carolina has spent more on construction than Virginia has strictly looking at state tax-dollars.
I wasn't aware that N.C. wasn't getting high levels of federal funding for those projects.
If they didn't, then that is their own dumbness, not something to be proud of.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 12, 2019, 05:36:39 PM
I put the routing where it is to avoid that multiplex that really doesnt need to be a multplex. 73 and 74 through this state should be their own separate routes, instead of sharing a route for 30+ miles.
But you don't need to build two routes just to avoid a multiplex, when both routes aren't needed. The existing I-73 / I-74 routing is plenty adequate, two interstates or one signed on it, and in reality, the I-74 designation just needs to go from North Carolina.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:38:08 PM
Plus 10% of a megaproject is still a large sum.
I mean, if Virginia considers $67 million in state tax-dollars for a megaproject a large sum, then I don't know what to say.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:38:08 PM
then that is their own dumbness, not something to be proud of.
Yes, it's
their dumbness that the federal government decided to not give them a high percentage. Totally makes sense.
The only federal aid advantage VDOT got was with the more recent Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement and Springfield Interchange, and those projects have far more traffic-wise national warrants. North Carolina's projects are mainly state and locally significant.
The others were projects from the 60s - 90s, and federal aid was a frequent and expected thing then.
Virginia added auxiliary urban routes to the interstate system in the 1968 additions, while North Carolina added similar mileage to build about 170 miles of I-40 between I-85 and Wilmington
(the segment between I-85 and US-70 essentially serves as not only a long-distance route but an urban route for the Raleigh-Durham area) and widened 35 miles of I-85 between Greensboro and Raleigh from 4 lanes to 8 lanes. Winston-Salem's southern bypass, now I-40, received 90-10 funding in the 90s.
Virginia used it's 1968 additions to build urban routes and has then remained static about adding any more additions, and no long-distance freeways, and North Carolina used it's 1968 additions to build a single long-distance interstate highway across the eastern part of the state, AND has been building urban routes and catching up utilizing their own funding, AND has been additional long-distance freeway corridors, again utilizing state funding, something VDOT has not done.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 05:50:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:38:08 PM
Plus 10% of a megaproject is still a large sum.
I mean, if Virginia considers $67 million in state tax-dollars for a megaproject a large sum, then I don't know what to say.
Probably looking at about $250 to $300 million for the projects I listed, and at the prices back then.
A not inconsiderable sum of state matching funding.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 05:50:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2019, 05:38:08 PM
then that is their own dumbness, not something to be proud of.
Yes, it's their dumbness that the federal government decided to not give them a high percentage. Totally makes sense.
That could be because of inadequate governmental lobbying ability, and a failure to obtain the federal funding levels that most states get.
That would not be something to be proud of.
This is assuming that they in fact
didn't get high levels of federal aid on those projects ...
The idea that federal money replaces state money is really not fully accurate.
States are apportioned federal funds. Although I'd imagine some sort of grant or earmarks also applied to the VA megaprojects Beltway listed, VA still had discretion where to spend its core federal funds. They could have spent the funding in a myriad of other ways, but chose to spend it on those projects.
VA still had to put up the first instance funding and because the federal funds are apportioned, the federal funds were essentially their money as well.
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 04:54:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 04:24:34 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
Another article this morning regarding the poor condition of the signs on US-64 in the Rocky Mount area.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/12/Appearance-woes-plague-U-S-64.html)
The link to the article is broken. Even after searching on Google, it still comes broken...
Site down?
What was in the article?
Yeah, I noticed it too just now. Apparently, they changed the website layout after I posted the link and now I can't find it either.
Anyway, the gist of it is that the signs on US-64 in Nash County, particularly in the Nashville/Momeyer area, are in really bad shape (one of which has half missing) and NCDOT is blaming the funding problem for not fixing/replacing them even though some of the signs had been in poor shape for a long time.
Is this the article you were referring to?
https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/local/local-dot-rep-concerned-about-u-s-s-appearance-in/article_c24b602e-62f8-5cc4-9456-e5fe00534754.html
Quote from: Finrod on November 12, 2019, 06:54:52 PM
Is this the article you were referring to?
https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/local/local-dot-rep-concerned-about-u-s-s-appearance-in/article_c24b602e-62f8-5cc4-9456-e5fe00534754.html
I'm not him, but yes, that is largely the same article that was posted before. It seems to have been edited a bit.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 12, 2019, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: Finrod on November 12, 2019, 06:54:52 PM
Is this the article you were referring to?
https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/local/local-dot-rep-concerned-about-u-s-s-appearance-in/article_c24b602e-62f8-5cc4-9456-e5fe00534754.html
I'm not him, but yes, that is largely the same article that was posted before. It seems to have been edited a bit.
Yep, that's it.
Quote from: LM117 on November 12, 2019, 07:04:21 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 12, 2019, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: Finrod on November 12, 2019, 06:54:52 PM
Is this the article you were referring to?
https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/local/local-dot-rep-concerned-about-u-s-s-appearance-in/article_c24b602e-62f8-5cc4-9456-e5fe00534754.html
I'm not him, but yes, that is largely the same article that was posted before. It seems to have been edited a bit.
Yep, that's it.
That's pretty sad they can't even get signage up. At least put temporary signage if anything.
This funding shortage isn't good for anybody. Hopefully within a few months, things can return back to normal, routine maintenance fully funded, and projects back on into planning.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 07:31:09 PM
At least put temporary signage if anything.
Isn't that what the SR 1306 plate is?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 12, 2019, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: Finrod on November 12, 2019, 06:54:52 PM
Is this the article you were referring to?
https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/local/local-dot-rep-concerned-about-u-s-s-appearance-in/article_c24b602e-62f8-5cc4-9456-e5fe00534754.html
I'm not him, but yes, that is largely the same article that was posted before. It seems to have been edited a bit.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191112085243/https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/2019/11/12/appearance-woes-plague-u-s-64.html
Here's the original article thanks to archive.org. Looks the same.
Quote from: NE2 on November 12, 2019, 07:37:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 07:31:09 PM
At least put temporary signage if anything.
Isn't that what the SR 1306 plate is?
No. That's always been there.
The sign actually read "Momeyer", a town located just north of the freeway.
SR-1306 isn't informative like the sign that listed the town.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 12, 2019, 07:38:14 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 12, 2019, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: Finrod on November 12, 2019, 06:54:52 PM
Is this the article you were referring to?
https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/local/local-dot-rep-concerned-about-u-s-s-appearance-in/article_c24b602e-62f8-5cc4-9456-e5fe00534754.html
I'm not him, but yes, that is largely the same article that was posted before. It seems to have been edited a bit.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191112085243/https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/2019/11/12/appearance-woes-plague-u-s-64.html
Here's the original article thanks to archive.org. Looks the same.
Oh, I guess it's just formatted differently. :crazy:
The sign pictured was still intact back in May. NCDOT seems to take a really long time to replace damaged or missing signs though. The Exit 1D signs on I-440/US-1 South were missing for quite some time (they semi fixed it with a LGS) and they finally replaced the missing sign at Exit 2 for Western Blvd (that one took over 5 years!).
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 20, 2019, 11:54:42 AM
There's been a lot of support / interest in the corridor from the HRTPO's Freight Transportation Advisory Committee, and the latest mention of I-87 in Virginia comes from their September 25, 2019 meeting where an update was presented, though I've not been able to find anything on what specific "updates" were talked about as there's been no minutes published. If previous minutes from meetings by the FTAC are any indication, minutes from this meeting will be released sometime in January - February 2020.
The minutes from the September 25th meeting were finally posted today (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/121819%2003%20Minutes.pdf) by the FTAC.
QuoteIV. I-87 UPDATE
Information item presented by Barbara Nelson, POV: Interstate 87 is planned as a 213-mile limited-access highway connecting the Raleigh-Durham area with Hampton Roads. The proposed corridor — which would connect with I-64 at the I-464/Chesapeake Expressway interchange in Chesapeake — was officially designated as a future interstate in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) in 2015. Portions of the corridor have already been completed in North Carolina, including a 13-mile segment in the Raleigh area.
The port met with representatives of North Carolina in September to discuss options on the alignment options for extending I-87 into Virginia. A contingent from North Carolina met with a member of the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Chief Deputy Commissioner to discuss the importance of improving the transportation system for health and safety reasons related to evacuations related to weather events and for economic development opportunities. The port has approached the City of Chesapeake TTAC member to discuss next steps in identifying a regional discussion. An update will be provided to the FTAC as regional discussions develop and are available for reporting out.
Realistically, I'm not sure what other alignment options would be available besides upgrading US-17 to interstate standards between the North Carolina state line and Cedar Rd, then utilizing the existing Dominion Blvd freeway north of there to connect to I-64. 5 interchanges would need to be constructed along the existing at-grade segment at Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, George Washington Hwy, Scenic Pkwy, and Grassfield Pkwy (that's going to be an interesting squeeze), and the interchange at I-64 would need to be expanded to handle increased southerly traffic, though granted it needs to be massively expanded yesterday regardless of what happens with I-87, it's a bottleneck as is. To maintain property access and local street connections, about 3 to 4 miles of local frontage road would also be needed along US-17 in addition to the interchanges.
The HRTPO (Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) has released their Draft 2045 LRTP (Long Range Transportation Plan) Candidate Projects list that will be evaluated for potential inclusion in the Final 2045 LRTP.
Two projects that regard the I-87 corridor in Virginia were included in the candidate project list.
- I-87 --- From Chesapeake Expressway (I-64/I-464/US-17 junction) to North Carolina border --- Upgrade to interstate standards --- Source: FTAC (Freight Transportation Advisory Committee), Public Survey, Additional Public Submission, Chesapeake, VPA (Virginia Port Authority)
- I-64/I-464/US-17 Interchange --- Improve I-64/I-464/US-17 interchange --- Source: Public Survey, Additional Public Submission, VDOT
Draft 2045 LRTP Candidate Projects - https://www.hrtpo.org/library/view/596/draft-2045-lrtp-candidate-projects
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 02, 2020, 05:15:45 PM
The HRTPO (Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) has released their Draft 2045 LRTP (Long Range Transportation Plan) Candidate Projects list that will be evaluated for potential inclusion in the Final 2045 LRTP.
An LRTP is unconstrained in that there is no cost estimate, and some transportation professionals call them a "wish list." Hopefully they won't drink the Kool-Aid especially when it is spiked with Ipecac. This wasteful project would not be of any real benefit to SE VA.
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2020, 10:21:57 PM
An LRTP is unconstrained in that there is no cost estimate, and some transportation professionals call them a "wish list."
You claimed last year that there was no interest with HRTPO, VDOT, and not apart of any long range plans, etc.
It has been added onto the draft candidate projects and was recommended by the Freight Transportation Advisory Committee, the City of Chesapeake, the Virginia Port Authority, and public survey.
There is certainly active interest locally for such a highway connection.
In the future, if this project gets incorporated into the LRTP, there will likely be further study done on the corridor, including an EIS with different alternatives, impacts, and detailed cost estimates.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 11:32:43 PM
By the Tar Heel State.
It is not even on the radar yet with VDOT or HRTPO or HRTAC as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.
Those politicians are deceived by spirits of Deception, Error, Delusion and Leviathan.
I-87 could boost the Hampton Roads economy, but it's years away (https://www.pilotonline.com/inside-business/vp-ib-interstate-87-0113-20200106-cek4k5gqnncphe66ojofzcvcyy-story.html)
QuoteIf you've driven from Norfolk to Raleigh, North Carolina, in the past few years, you've probably seen the signs.
On that iconic green background, capital white letters proclaim: "FUTURE INTERSTATE." Signage for future Interstate 87 has been installed along both U.S. 64 and U.S. 17 in North Carolina during the last few years.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation changed 11 exit numbers in May on U.S. 64 in Wake County from the 400s to single and double digits to reflect the future interstate.
Those signs could be a prelude to economic success for not only Hampton Roads and the Research Triangle in Raleigh, but the rural expanse of North Carolina where much of the interstate would pass through, according to economic leaders. Still, the road has to get built first – a process the North Carolina Department of Transportation said could take up to 20 years.
"We're really excited about the potential," said Joe Milazzo, executive director of the Regional Transportation Alliance of Raleigh. "Virginia is certainly a prosperous state. North Carolina, too, but we have a chance for both states to do better."
The interstate of about 180 miles would follow U.S. 64 from Raleigh to the town of Williamston, then U.S. 17 between Williamston and Chesapeake. The U.S. 64 portion of the road is already in pretty good shape, Milazzo said. The entire section is freeway, and only relatively minor improvements are needed to bring it up to interstate standards.
U.S. 17, on the other hand, is where the bulk of the time-consuming renovations need to happen – anywhere from $849.7 million to $945.2 million in improvements, according to a 2018 feasibility study. Those non-freeway sections would potentially need "widening, upgrade, or (a) new location," the study said.
The economic benefits of the road could also be enormous – a total impact of $3 billion and more than 4,000 new jobs along the North Carolina highway, according to 2013 study completed for the Highway 17 Association.
The road could also help shipping companies save gas and money by trucking material from the Port of Virginia to the Raleigh area, said Norfolk economist Bob McNab.
"This, to me, seems (like) a fairly straightforward infrastructure investment that I think would bring significant returns for not only Hampton Roads in general, but specifically the port by reducing transportation costs to the south," McNab said.
Chesapeake, for its part, has already poured resources into road improvement projects. One project widened 3.8 miles of Dominion Boulevard from two to four lanes; construction of the Veterans Bridge began in 2013. The project cost almost $400 million and took more than four years to complete.
There's no official timeline for the interstate. The upgrades would need to happen section-by-section, Milazzo said. Construction of the section from Elizabeth City to Virginia could start by 2024, North Carolina General Assembly member Bob Steinburg told The Pilot in October 2016.
Milazzo said stakeholders, from state and local governments to businesses and residents, need to stay invested in the highway for the upgrades to happen in a timely manner.
"Quick wins are good as well," he added, referencing the sign installation process.
Quote
QuoteIf you've driven from Norfolk to Raleigh, North Carolina, in the past few years, you've probably seen the signs.
No, because this elongated US-17/US-64 route is not the route that people take for that trip.
QuoteQuote
U.S. 17, on the other hand, is where the bulk of the time-consuming renovations need to happen – anywhere from $849.7 million to $945.2 million in improvements, according to a 2018 feasibility study. Those non-freeway sections would potentially need "widening, upgrade, or (a) new location," the study said.
If that is true in 2015 dollars, try inflation-factoring it out to 2045 at even a very modest (by heavy construction standards) 5% per year and it will be at least 3 times that expensive. At 8% (reasonable), 4 to 5 times that figure.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 12:41:24 AM
No, because this elongated US-17/US-64 route is not the route that people take for that trip.
If you're in Chesapeake, it's actually not that much "elongated" , and I've actually found it as a reasonable alternative as opposed to heading into I-64 traffic, the High Rise Bridge, the Suffolk Bypass which is quite full and has had slowdowns at peak hours, the stop-and-go urban area west of Suffolk which can be a bottleneck at peak hours, and avoiding 50 miles of I-95 which can become stop-and-go on peak weekends. All of that combined can easily add 15-20 minutes to your trip, depending on time of day. For me anyways, taking US-17 avoids all of that, and has fairly light traffic immediately from leaving without having to enter the urban traffic area.
All of this is speaking from experience from taking both routings. It's usually 50-50 depending on the situation and time of day.
Why do you assume -nobody- takes this routing?
Also, keep in mind the segment between Raleigh and I-95 is also apart of the corridor, and future interstate signage is posted along that stretch, and the segment from I-40 to Wendell has been designated as I-87. You'll see the signs regardless of how you chose to make the connection to Norfolk east of I-95. All former I-495 signage has been removed entirely.
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2020, 11:20:23 PM
Those politicians are deceived by spirits of Deception, Error, Delusion and Leviathan.
Coming from the capital of the Communist, I mean Commonwealth of VA, don't know if I should laugh, cry or be scared. NC will build I-87 and VA will build it's part as well once it reaches it, maybe someday I-895 will exist someday as well, despite being pointless but, it is what it is.
Quote from: goobnav on January 07, 2020, 07:56:56 AM
maybe someday I-895 will exist someday as well, despite being pointless but, it is what it is.
As far as usage and traffic volumes goes, that roadway is more of a "vanity" interstate highway than I-87 is. It's out of the way to have any decent purpose, and has a high toll.
Are there any Interstate 495 signs remaining between Interstates 440 and 540? And is there any likelihood the 495 designation might reappear in the future?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 07, 2020, 04:03:27 PM
Are there any Interstate 495 signs remaining between Interstates 440 and 540? And is there any likelihood the 495 designation might reappear in the future?
Not on the BGS's but, there are side roads, New Bern Ave for one that still have I-495 shields posted.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 04:16:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 12:41:24 AM
No, because this elongated US-17/US-64 route is not the route that people take for that trip.
If you're in Chesapeake, it's actually not that much "elongated" , and I've actually found it as a reasonable alternative as opposed to heading into I-64 traffic,
Well, if you are at the bottom of the city of Chesapeake, that may be the case. There would be considerable backtracking.
But the puff-piece said, "if you've driven from Norfolk to Raleigh." A metric like that basically focuses on the core of the area, say within the H.R. Beltway loop. Throw in the I-264 corridor to the oceanfront if you want.
So 22 miles longer and 22 to 25 minutes longer depending on the latest Google Maps calculation.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 08:09:56 AM
Quote from: goobnav on January 07, 2020, 07:56:56 AM
maybe someday I-895 will exist someday as well, despite being pointless but, it is what it is.
As far as usage and traffic volumes goes, that roadway is more of a "vanity" interstate highway than I-87 is. It's out of the way to have any decent purpose, and has a high toll.
17,000 AADT is considerable enough, and it obviates having to use I-64 and I-95 thru the center of the city, or in my case obviates having to use VA-76 and VA-195 both of which have tolls.
I just yesterday used Route 895 both ways on a trip to the airport area, and I live on the VA-150 corridor.
Quote from: goobnav on January 07, 2020, 07:56:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2020, 11:20:23 PM
Those politicians are deceived by spirits of Deception, Error, Delusion and Leviathan.
Coming from the capital of the Communist, I mean Commonwealth of VA, don't know if I should laugh, cry or be scared.
That describes the current state government. Spirits of stupidity and dumbness as well.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 08:09:56 AM
Quote from: goobnav on January 07, 2020, 07:56:56 AM
maybe someday I-895 will exist someday as well, despite being pointless but, it is what it is.
As far as usage and traffic volumes goes, that roadway is more of a "vanity" interstate highway than I-87 is. It's out of the way to have any decent purpose, and has a high toll.
17,000 AADT is considerable enough, and it obviates having to use I-64 and I-95 thru the center of the city, or in my case obviates having to use VA-76 and VA-195 both of which have tolls.
I just yesterday used Route 895 both ways on a trip to the airport area, and I live on the VA-150 corridor.
895 provides a very significant time savings for anyone that lives on the south side of Richmond or Chesterfield Co. When I lived in Chesterfield, 895 was a godsend and well worth the toll to avoid I-95/64. 895 also provides mobility options to an area that is underserved by highway infrastructure.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 04:53:01 PM
17,000 AADT is considerable enough
15,000 AADT between I-95 and VA-5, then dips to 7,000 AADT between VA-5 and I-295. Not too many people utilizing the entire roadway as a bypass.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 04:47:16 PM
Well, if you are at the bottom of the city of Chesapeake, that may be the case. There would be considerable backtracking.
I'm south of I-64, but not at the bottom of the city. Getting to I-64 is a quick 5 minute drive up VA-168, and is usually easy to access. When I've traveled the US-17 / US-64 corridor headed south, I'll usually take VA-168 up to US-17, then head south on US-17 into North Carolina, traversing the entire corridor from I-64 to the border through Chesapeake. Otherwise, I'll take I-64 towards Bowers Hill from VA-168 over the High Rise Bridge, then US-58 west to I-95 / I-85.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 04:53:01 PM
So 22 miles longer and 22 to 25 minutes longer depending on the latest Google Maps calculation.
It's interesting, because after looking at those estimates, and really any time estimate from Google on any routing, the numbers never seem to add up. I'm not saying US-17 / US-64 is faster than US-58, but Google seems to estimate a speed faster than the speed limit on many routings. For instance, Google estimates it takes 70 minutes to travel 69 miles from I-664 to I-95 along US-58, an average speed of 59 mph. Based on a chart utilizing the existing speed limits by section I completed earlier this year, that time should be roughly 76 minutes. Keep in mind this is also excluding any of the 9 traffic signals along the corridor, most of which are clustered just west of the Suffolk Bypass, then a few more scattered between there and I-95. You could easily add 5 minutes or more waiting at signals, which has happened to me hitting some long red lights in the past, notably just west of Suffolk. A reasonable estimate for the drive between I-664 and I-95 would be around 75 to 80 minutes, give or take a few.
The next section is I-95 between US-58 and US-64, roughly 54 miles long. Google estimates 45 minutes, which is accurate. So between I-664 and US-64 via US-58, a safe estimate utilizing posted speed limits and factoring 9 traffic signals and an urban area, is around 120 - 125 minutes, give or take a few, compared to Google's overall estimate of 115 minutes.
As for US-17, Google currently estimates 95 minutes for the 96 mile stretch from I-64 / I-464 to I-95 along US-17 / US-64, an average speed of 61 mph. Based on a chart utilizing the existing speed limits by section I completed earlier this year, that time should be roughly 100 minutes. Keep in mind this is also excluding any of the 11 traffic signals along the corridor, which are all relatively spread out, 2 in Chesapeake, 2 in Hertford, 3 in Windsor, 2 in Williamston, and the rest in rural areas. You could easily add 5 minutes, without any lengthy delays as none of these signals are in densely developed areas such as Suffolk. A reasonable estimate for the drive between I-64 and US-64 along US-17 would be around 100 to 105 minutes, give or take a few. If completed to interstate standards, and a 68 mph average speed (because of 17 miles in Chesapeake likely max 60 or 65 mph), this would reduce to about 84 minutes, 16 to 21 minutes faster.
The next section is US-64 between US-17 and I-95, roughly 51 miles long. Google estimates 45 minutes, which is accurate for constant 70 mph speed limit. So between I-64 / I-464 and I-95 via US-17 / US-64, a safe estimate utilizing posted speed limits and factoring 11 traffic signals, is around 145 - 150 minutes, give or take a few, compared to Google's overall estimate of 140 minutes.
If you assume a starting point at Downtown Norfolk, you would add 5 minutes, 5 miles for the US-17 / US-64 option for using I-464. and 11 minutes, 9 miles for the US-58 option for using I-264.
So ultimately, today, from Downtown Norfolk to I-95 / US-64 via...
US-17 / US-64 ... 150-155 minutes, 153 miles
US-58 / I-95 ... 131-136 minutes, 123 miles
From Downtown Norfolk, a 20 mile difference, and a 14-19 minute difference, assuming no traffic on either interstate. I-264 has seemed to be more problematic, especially the tunnels and congestion around them, whereas I've rarely seen any congestion I-464. Somebody immediately leaving Downtown Norfolk to the south at peak hours could easily opt to take US-17 / US-64 over paying the more expensive tunnel toll, waiting in congestion, plus the urban congested area west of Suffolk and the busy Suffolk bypass, and only adding ultimately a few minutes of travel time overall, and very minimal traffic leaving the area. It is a lot easier and less congested on I-464 and US-17 than I-264 and US-58 heading south/west at peak hours, and again, this is speaking from experience traveling both highways at peak hours.
If I-87 was completed today, it would be roughly 134 minutes, 153 miles via that corridor using the times and distances calculated out above, offering comparable travel times to US-58, faster depending on origin location, congested areas
(such as leaving Downtown Norfolk, I-464 and US-17 often less congested than traveling thru the tunnels which is often a bottleneck itself, again speaking from experience), and offering a corridor without any traffic signals, without urban areas such as west of Suffolk, and a constant 70 mph speed limit.
I'm not claiming I-87 will fully eliminate US-58's purpose and usage, it certainly won't, but it would be a viable alternative out of the area, and is certainly not "vanity". If I lived along the I-64 or I-264 corridor on the eastern side, I could easily see that route as more attractive than US-58, not only bypassing interstate congestion, but avoiding congested arterial portions, traffic signals, I-95, and being able to maintain an interstate speed, 70 mph, the whole way, despite the additional distance.
Would you consider the entire length of I-17 between Phoenix and I-40 "vanity"?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 04:53:01 PM
17,000 AADT is considerable enough
15,000 AADT between I-95 and VA-5, then dips to 7,000 AADT between VA-5 and I-295. Not too many people utilizing the entire roadway as a bypass.
So? The most important section is the James River bridge and that was the bulk of the cost to construct.
Laburnum Avenue is a 4-lane arterial continuation of the VA-150 and Route 895 middle circumferential route, and that connection is at the interchange that includes VA-5.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 04:53:01 PM
So 22 miles longer and 22 to 25 minutes longer depending on the latest Google Maps calculation. [Norfolk-Raleigh]
It's interesting, because after looking at those estimates, and really any time estimate from Google on any routing, the numbers never seem to add up. I'm not saying US-17 / US-64 is faster than US-58, but Google seems to estimate a speed faster than the speed limit on many routings.
I never see routings on Google Maps that are faster than the speed limit. Handwaving.
Those are the numbers that I have gotten in the past, including on a detailed spreadsheet a year ago. Average of 62.0 mph on the US-17/I-64, and 62.3 mph using US-58/I-95. Keep in mind the long section of 70 mph I-95.
Google Maps doesn't even include US-17/US-64 when running those two cities, you have to click and drag the line to get it. That shows how worthy is their consideration / recommendation or lack thereof.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 06:30:45 PM
If I-87 was completed today,
Could, woulda, shoulda. If it happens at all, 2045 or later.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:02:19 PM
Google Maps doesn't even include US-17/US-64 when running those two cities, you have to click and drag the line to get it. That shows how worthy is their consideration.
Which is strange considering it will show I-95 to I-64 as an option, despite being an hour longer. I've taken that routing once, specifically to clinch I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg, and would never do it again.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:02:19 PM
Those are the numbers that I have gotten in the past, including on a detailed spreadsheet a year ago. Average of 62.0 mph on the US-17/US-64, and 62.3 mph using US-58/I-95. Keep in mind the long section of 70 mph I-95.
Sounds right. From the Berkley Bridge to Nash Community College, located off of US-64 just west of I-95, I had gotten 61.8 mph, 2h 12m along I-95 / US-58, and 62.1 mph, 2h 32m along US-17 / US-64.
Roughly 54 miles of 70 mph along the former routing, and 69 miles along the latter routing.
Again, future, assuming 60 mph entirely in Virginia, and 70 mph entirely in North Carolina, 68.9 mph, 2h 17m for a completed interstate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:09:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:02:19 PM
Google Maps doesn't even include US-17/US-64 when running those two cities, you have to click and drag the line to get it. That shows how worthy is their consideration.
Which is strange considering it will show I-95 to I-64 as an option, despite being an hour longer. I've taken that routing once, specifically to clinch I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg, and would never do it again.
I have never seen that routing. The other secondary routings I have seen are several that involve Murfreesboro.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:14:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:09:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:02:19 PM
Google Maps doesn't even include US-17/US-64 when running those two cities, you have to click and drag the line to get it. That shows how worthy is their consideration.
Which is strange considering it will show I-95 to I-64 as an option, despite being an hour longer. I've taken that routing once, specifically to clinch I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg, and would never do it again.
I have never seen that routing. The other secondary routings I have seen are several that involve Murfreesboro.
(https://i.ibb.co/zfNwVyG/Raleigh-To-Norfolk.png)
The other routing I've seen, though not currently showing, is US-64 to NC-111 to NC-11 to US-13 via Ahoskie. I've never seen anything to Murfreesboro, that would dump out in Franklin.
If I was traveling between Tarboro (where NC-111 splits) and Norfolk, I would opt for US-64 / US-17 over the secondary routings, despite being 10 minutes slower, since the former is all 4-lane roadway whereas the latter is mostly 2-lane and dumps on the west side.
I've done Norfolk <-> Greenville, population 180,000, a few times, and the best routing, which is never shown on Google, is US-17 to US-64 to NC-11, all 4-lane divided highway. Google only recommends secondary routings for that in order to save a few minutes, which is not worthwhile in my opinion.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:20:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:14:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:09:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:02:19 PM
Google Maps doesn't even include US-17/US-64 when running those two cities, you have to click and drag the line to get it. That shows how worthy is their consideration.
Which is strange considering it will show I-95 to I-64 as an option, despite being an hour longer. I've taken that routing once, specifically to clinch I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg, and would never do it again.
I have never seen that routing. The other secondary routings I have seen are several that involve Murfreesboro.
https://i.ibb.co/zfNwVyG/Raleigh-To-Norfolk.png
I have no clue as to how they would produce something like that, but it does show 68 miles and 56 minutes longer.
I see that US-58 and I-95 are noted "this route has tolls." Did you program it to also show routes without tolls? Because "Norfolk" goes thru a toll tunnel to get to US-58 and the Dominion Blvd. bridge toll to get to US-17.
No tolls using I-95 and I-295 and I-64 to downtown Norfolk.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:32:18 PM
I see that US-58 and I-95 are noted "this route has tolls." Did you program it to also show routes without tolls? Because "Norfolk" goes thru a toll tunnel to get to US-58 and the Dominion Blvd. bridge toll to get to US-17.
No tolls using I-95 and I-295 and I-64 to downtown Norfolk.
The picture shown is a routing without any special programmed features. If you select "avoid tolls", it will not show any routings that involve tolls. The picture shown was merely entering "Norfolk" and "Raleigh" in the routing box, and the two options shown.
(https://i.ibb.co/3rbsCg2/Nashville-NCTo-Norfolk.png)
When I mess with where the routing starts on the southern end, sometimes it will indeed show US-64 / US-17 as an option.
This particular routing originates on the US-64 freeway west of I-95, ending in Virginia Beach at the Oceanfront.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:32:18 PM
I see that US-58 and I-95 are noted "this route has tolls." Did you program it to also show routes without tolls? Because "Norfolk" goes thru a toll tunnel to get to US-58 and the Dominion Blvd. bridge toll to get to US-17.
No tolls using I-95 and I-295 and I-64 to downtown Norfolk.
The picture shown is a routing without any special programmed features. If you select "avoid tolls", it will not show any routings that involve tolls. The picture shown was merely entering "Norfolk" and "Raleigh" in the routing box, and the two options shown.
That is very odd.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:39:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:32:18 PM
I see that US-58 and I-95 are noted "this route has tolls." Did you program it to also show routes without tolls? Because "Norfolk" goes thru a toll tunnel to get to US-58 and the Dominion Blvd. bridge toll to get to US-17.
No tolls using I-95 and I-295 and I-64 to downtown Norfolk.
The picture shown is a routing without any special programmed features. If you select "avoid tolls", it will not show any routings that involve tolls. The picture shown was merely entering "Norfolk" and "Raleigh" in the routing box, and the two options shown.
That is very odd.
When I selected "avoid tolls" for a Norfolk to Raleigh routing, it shows the same two routes, I-95 to US-58, and I-95 to I-64, except using I-64 between I-664 and I-464, then using I-464 north, to avoid the tunnel on the former routing.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:39:06 PM
When I mess with where the routing starts on the southern end, sometimes it will indeed show US-64 / US-17 as an option.
This particular routing originates on the US-64 freeway west of I-95, ending in Virginia Beach at the Oceanfront.
I don't.
Nash Community College to VA Beach oceanfront does not show a highway route south of I-95 and US-58.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:44:33 PM
Nash Community College to VA Beach oceanfront does not show a highway route south of I-95 and US-58.
For me, if I used a location off the freeway, such as the college, it did not show it, but if you drag the starting location onto the freeway, it did.
For instance, if I was driving on the freeway and I did a routing on Google Maps to determine the best way before the split, it would show at that point since I'm on the freeway. For whatever reason, that particular route won't show otherwise.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:50:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:44:33 PM
Nash Community College to VA Beach oceanfront does not show a highway route south of I-95 and US-58.
For me, if I used a location off the freeway, such as the college, it did not show it, but if you drag the starting location onto the freeway, it did.
For instance, if I was driving on the freeway and I did a routing on Google Maps to determine the best way before the split, it would show at that point since I'm on the freeway. For whatever reason, that particular route won't show otherwise.
The US-64/US-17 route does not come up when I do that.
I don't want to be "jiggling" the software tool to try to get it to come up with something that I like. The obvious thing is to look for commonly occurring results.
DOT: Local section of I-87 could start in 2027 (https://www.dailyadvance.com/news/local/dot-local-section-of-i--could-start-in/article_2c6a3d3b-12cc-5cb7-8889-c4ee7aec0fdb.html)
QuoteConstruction of a portion of the proposed 213-mile Interstate 87 project linking Raleigh and Norfolk, Virginia, could begin as soon as 2027 and start with a section of U.S. Highway 17 from the Virginia state line down to the Elizabeth City bypass.
Randy Midgett, construction engineer for the N.C. Department of Transportation's Division 1, told members of the Elizabeth City Rotary Club Monday that land acquisition for the 13-mile stretch of what will be I-87 could begin in 2025.
Midgett said that first stretch of the I-87 project is estimated to cost around $187 million.
"What we are seeing is projects coming out that are in movement along that (corridor)," Midgett said. "Right now, that is in preliminary design. The department has recently completed feasibility studies and what that feasibility study does is give us a guidebook to plan projects in that corridor. These projects have to compete for funding with other projects."
Midgett said several projects connected to the proposed I-87 project are also in the preliminary stages. Two interchanges in Perquimans County – one at Harvey Point Road and U.S. Highway 17 in Hertford and another at New Hope Road and U.S. Highway 17 in Winfall – are scheduled to start construction in 2028.
"These are indirectly associated with preparing for the future I-87," Midgett said.
QuoteInterstate 87 project linking Raleigh and Norfolk, Virginia,
Sigh ... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2020, 05:50:29 PM
QuoteInterstate 87 project linking Raleigh and Norfolk, Virginia,
Sigh ... :rolleyes:
Its northern terminus would be in Norfolk and its southern terminus would be in Raleigh.
U.S. Route 460 runs from Norfolk, Virginia to Frankfort, Kentucky.
U.S. Route 62 runs from the Mexico-US border at El Paso, Texas, to Niagara Falls, New York, near the Canada—US border.
I-17 runs from Phoenix, Arizona to Flagstaff, Arizona providing an interstate routing between Phoenix and I-40 East that is 46 miles longer than arterial roadways.
A segment of I-90 runs from Rapid City, South Dakota to Crow Agency, Montana providing an interstate routing between the two points that is 55 miles longer than arterial roadways.
The southern segment of the future I-49 corridor runs from Lafayette, Louisiana and New Orleans, Louisiana along the US-90 corridor providing an interstate routing that is 22 miles longer than the existing I-10, providing an alternative corridor.
I-41 runs from Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Green Bay, Wisconsin providing an interstate routing that is 16 miles longer than the existing I-43, providing an alternate corridor and access to cities along that route.
Are these vanity interstate highways?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2020, 08:18:44 PM
I-17 runs from Phoenix, Arizona to Flagstaff, Arizona providing an interstate routing between Phoenix and I-40 East that is 46 miles longer than arterial roadways.
A segment of I-90 runs from Rapid City, South Dakota to Crow Agency, Montana providing an interstate routing between the two points that is 55 miles longer than arterial roadways.
The southern segment of the future I-49 corridor runs from Lafayette, Louisiana and New Orleans, Louisiana along the US-90 corridor providing an interstate routing that is 22 miles longer than the existing I-10, providing an alternative corridor & second route out of New Orleans.
Are these vanity interstate highways?
I can't speak for the first two, but for 49, I say yes, even though it gets people's blood to boiling, especially certain members of this forum from Louisiana. 49 has no business extending past Fort Smith, AR; renumber 49 to 51 between Texarkana and Lafayette, and make the Lafayette to NOLA portion into either a 3di or a directional spur (if they wanted to, Louisiana could pull a Texas and turn 49 from Lafayette to NOLA I-10S, the current routing I-10C and I-12 into I-10N, freeing up 12 for something else......Austin to Houston, anybody?)
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on January 14, 2020, 08:30:36 PM
I can't speak for the first two, but for 49, I say yes,
In terms of usage or merely numbering?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2020, 08:32:05 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on January 14, 2020, 08:30:36 PM
I can't speak for the first two, but for 49, I say yes,
In terms of usage or merely numbering?
Most likely he considers the portion of I-49 between Texarkana and Ft. Smith to be less than optimal in terms of cost v. benefits -- or simply too much for AR to chew off. We all have our opinions and/or analyses. But the long-term and historic backing for the full-fledged corridor will probably mitigate in its favor -- although the timeframe for completion will in all likelihood be stretched waaaaaaaaaaay out! And that same backing is pretty much vested in the number "49" for the corridor -- so it's unlikely that'll change regardless of how long the center section takes (funny thing about center corridor sections running through AR -- they tend to draw more than their share of controversy!).
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2020, 08:18:44 PM
I-17 runs from Phoenix, Arizona to Flagstaff, Arizona providing an interstate routing between Phoenix and I-40 East that is 46 miles longer than arterial roadways.
Arterial highways that did not exist in arterial form back in 1956.
The direct connecting of Tucson, Phoenix and Flagstaff was worthy in and of itself for an Interstate highway back in 1956.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2020, 08:18:44 PM
A segment of I-90 runs from Rapid City, South Dakota to Crow Agency, Montana providing an interstate routing between the two points that is 55 miles longer than arterial roadways.
Arterial highways that did not exist in arterial form back in 1956.
I-90 is transcontinental and needed to be routed somewhere, and while I don't know the exact rationale for that segment, I see that Montana with its huge Interstate mileage was relieved of close to 150 miles of Interstate construction by Wyoming; and a Montana routing doesn't really seem any more logical than its current routing even from a traffic standpoint.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2020, 08:18:44 PM
The southern segment of the future I-49 corridor runs from Lafayette, Louisiana and New Orleans, Louisiana along the US-90 corridor providing an interstate routing that is 22 miles longer than the existing I-10, providing an alternative corridor.
There are major population centers around Houma, and have any officials actually touted this as an Interstate highway to connect NOLA with I-10 West?
This may be vanity.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2020, 08:18:44 PM
I-41 runs from Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Green Bay, Wisconsin providing an interstate routing that is 16 miles longer than the existing I-43, providing an alternate corridor and access to cities along that route.
Already a full freeway before it was designated I-41. Has it actually been touted as a connector between Milwaukee and Green Bay?
Serves major population areas in the middle, Fond du Lac, Oshkosh and Appleton.
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2020, 09:36:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2020, 08:18:44 PM
A segment of I-90 runs from Rapid City, South Dakota to Crow Agency, Montana providing an interstate routing between the two points that is 55 miles longer than arterial roadways.
Arterial highways that did not exist in arterial form back in 1956.
Wat.
.
.
.
PS: I-90 probably goes as-is to better serve Yellowstone.
Quote from: NE2 on January 14, 2020, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2020, 09:36:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2020, 08:18:44 PM
A segment of I-90 runs from Rapid City, South Dakota to Crow Agency, Montana providing an interstate routing between the two points that is 55 miles longer than arterial roadways.
Arterial highways that did not exist in arterial form back in 1956.
Wat.
PS: I-90 probably goes as-is to better serve Yellowstone.
Could be.
I see this is one of those situations where a longer 1956 segment routing saved total construction mileage.
The US-212 routing for I-90 would have added 41 miles of construction, assuming that I-25 was continued up to I-90/US-212.
This thread's gone awry.
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2020, 09:36:41 PM
There are major population centers around Houma
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2020, 09:36:41 PM
Serves major population areas in the middle, Fond du Lac, Oshkosh and Appleton.
Is Greenville, NC, a metro of 100,000 and growing, not considered a major population area? The metro is only 10 miles away from the US-64 / Future I-87 corridor, connected by 4-lane highway, and the US-17 corridor is the direct connection between Norfolk and Greenville today. An upgrade of US-17 to interstate standards would complete an interstate connection between Norfolk and Greenville, serving two major population areas.
The NC-11 corridor between Kinston and US-64 has proposed to be upgraded to interstate standards as well, to further complete the connection, and to provide access to the I-87 corridor from Kinston and the Global TransPark, Goldsboro, Wilson, and other areas that it would connect in the central eastern region.
The US-17 corridor south of US-64 serves major population centers of New Bern, Jacksonville, Wilmington, and other areas along the eastern coast. Those would all see improved access to Norfolk with an improved US-17. These interstate upgrades could also continue south of US-64, especially if US-17 alone is ever improved to interstate standards in the future throughout the state.
As far as the directly connecting Norfolk-Raleigh argument, it may not be fully true, but I've already refuted in above posts it would certainly supplement the existing US-58 connection, and provide a second major southerly corridor and could draw traffic from the eastern half of Hampton Roads, especially during peak hours. Along the I-64 corridor from I-264 to I-464, along with everything south of I-64 along the US-17 and VA-168 corridors which have been significantly growing in the past 20 years, and everything in between - there's major areas served in this entire section along including Greenbrier, and it would only be around 15 miles added by taking a completed I-87 over US-58, and the travel time would be no different - only the former would offer a corridor without traffic signals, without congested urban areas with 35 mph speed limits, allow a uniform 70 mph speed limit throughout, and avoid a 50 mile stretch of I-95 which could be a major save during peak weekends. This argument that the corridor is entirely vanity just doesn't hold true in the reality of things, keeping in mind US-64 is already completed to freeway, it's merely an upgrade of US-17 ultimately, along with looking at future outward growth southwards and increasing traffic congestion in the region as a whole, plus the above mentioned connections with Greenville, and improved access to the US-17 corridor overall with better connections to New Bern, Jacksonville, and Wilmington.
It's now apparent that the corridor is now being studied and considered by the HRTPO, FTAC, the City of Chesapeake, and has beginning to gain some leverage around the area overall. If the segment between the state line and Elizabeth City begins by 2027, I could certainly see a bigger push on both sides of the border to connect that completed segment to I-64 by upgrading the 12 mile US-17 segment in Virginia, especially as growth continues southwards, Elizabeth City continues to grow and develop further, etc. This segment to Elizabeth City piece has been envisioned as being completed as a freeway in the long term for decades, at least on the North Carolina side. It's not a new development solely because I-87 was created.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on January 15, 2020, 11:42:49 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2020, 11:53:56 PM
This thread's gone awry.
Welcome to AARoads.
For better or worse, this is what happens when two posters set up diametric positions on a subject -- here, the worth/value of the I-87 corridor in general. Ironically,
both are VA residents, one posting from a location affected by any future development of said corridor, the other a long-time critic of such projects. Sort of reminds me of the McEnroe/Borg duels in the '80's -- a lot of volleying back and forth, but for the most part serving up returnable strikes. Having been in a similar situation a few years back (concerning a L.A. issue), it's difficult to see an end to all this -- at least the participants are able to hike up their post count in big chunks! But it's starting to look a bit like the
Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch --
"No I didn't"/"You most certainly did!" back-and-forth refutation of the other's positions. Guys, it was fun for a while; but it's getting a bit long in the tooth. Maybe one of you should head east on I-64 and the other west and meet in Colonial Williamsburg and have it out, hash it out, or whatever floats your common boat. Or at least come up with something original after these several months of repetition. Just a thought!
Quote from: sparker on January 15, 2020, 12:40:17 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on January 15, 2020, 11:42:49 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2020, 11:53:56 PM
This thread's gone awry.
Welcome to AARoads.
For better or worse, this is what happens when two posters set up diametric positions on a subject -- here, the worth/value of the I-87 corridor in general. Ironically, both are VA residents, one posting from a location affected by any future development of said corridor, the other a long-time critic of such projects. Sort of reminds me of the McEnroe/Borg duels in the '80's -- a lot of volleying back and forth, but for the most part serving up returnable strikes. Having been in a similar situation a few years back (concerning a L.A. issue), it's difficult to see an end to all this -- at least the participants are able to hike up their post count in big chunks! But it's starting to look a bit like the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch -- "No I didn't"/"You most certainly did!" back-and-forth refutation of the other's positions. Guys, it was fun for a while; but it's getting a bit long in the tooth. Maybe one of you should head east on I-64 and the other west and meet in Colonial Williamsburg and have it out, hash it out, or whatever floats your common boat. Or at least come up with something original after these several months of repetition. Just a thought!
I think a lot of this is because not only do they have differing opinions on many transportation issues in the wider region, but they're also not the type to let things go when it becomes clear that the other person isn't going to change their mind. The same dynamic happens in many other places with other members, but since most other people will eventually back down or move on to other things, it doesn't go on for pages and pages.
Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2020, 01:07:24 PM
I think a lot of this is because not only do they have differing opinions on many transportation issues in the wider region, but they're also not the type to let things go when it becomes clear that the other person isn't going to change their mind. The same dynamic happens in many other places with other members, but since most other people will eventually back down or move on to other things, it doesn't go on for pages and pages.
I would have very little to say here if the advocates would simply back off from the "Norfolk to Raleigh Interstate" claim.
There are 21 or 22 extra miles that they think they can overcome by 2045 or beyond, but they can't in mileage and unlikely in significant time improvement.
But that apparently is the core of their justification, that it has to be promoted as something more than just a "super arterial" to obtain enough support to get it built.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 02:15:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2020, 01:07:24 PM
I think a lot of this is because not only do they have differing opinions on many transportation issues in the wider region, but they're also not the type to let things go when it becomes clear that the other person isn't going to change their mind. The same dynamic happens in many other places with other members, but since most other people will eventually back down or move on to other things, it doesn't go on for pages and pages.
I would have very little to say here if the advocates would simply back off from the "Norfolk to Raleigh Interstate" claim.
Fine by me. In Virginia there seems to be some support (although I'm not in a position to judge how much) for a freeway connection between Norfolk and Elizabeth City. In North Carolina there is certainly support for a freeway connection between Elizabeth City and Raleigh, connecting the capital city to the northeastern portion of the state. Put these ideas together and you have I-87.
This comment is LATE, and I know my comments have been covered numerous times on this forum. Here's my take on I-87:
-I hate the number and wish I-56 would have been pursued. At the very least I'd like to see I-87 replace I-664 if the number is kept.
I-87 will only benefit Eastern North Carolina, this is North Carolina's MO. This Interstate will never go away for this reason. These upgrades would have happened anyway via the ongoing improvements to US-17 in NC FWIW.
A majority of the US 64 freeway that will become I-87 is already built in NC. I don't mind the interstate upgrades as much for this reason.
North Carolinians from the Piedmont and points west will mainly use I-87 to get to the outer banks as they do today.
I don't believe this route will do much to help increase intermodal opportunities between Raleigh and the Port of Virginia. A majority of the freight moved from the port is by two major Class 1 railroads. Movements by rail will only increase with the opening of the CSX CCX Terminal in Rocky Mount.
If VA ever decides to upgrade US 58 with or without tolls, I-87 will be an even less valuable as an option to Norfolk and Virginia Beach for traffic originating from I-95 and points west.
I'd prefer NCDOT to construct a tollway from the State Line to OBX. It seems like a much better investment. The easier it is to get to OBX, the better.
I'd like to see the I-87/I-95 interchange upgraded in both design and signage. When I'm traveling for work from Richmond to Raleigh, I always good a good laugh when I see the sign that says "I-95 Nashville" as if Metro Raleigh isn't 45 minutes away.
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 15, 2020, 07:24:05 PM
At the very least I'd like to see I-87 replace I-664 if the number is kept.
I-664? Or I-464? An extension of the corridor up I-464 to Downtown Norfolk and I-264 would be logical once it is completed to the area.
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 15, 2020, 07:24:05 PM
If VA ever decides to upgrade US 58 with or without tolls, I-87 will be an even less valuable as an option to Norfolk and Virginia Beach for traffic originating from I-95 and points west.
I do agree with this, and ultimately would rather see US-58 the main interstate route out to I-95 South in a perfect world, but VDOT's recent study indicated it would cost at least $2+ billion, and I'd say the chances of any major upgrade is slim to none, especially considering the billions of dollars of unfunded I-81, I-64, and I-95 widenings, and the entire I-73 corridor that will be prioritized over that.
With the recent support of the I-87 corridor being viewed as the future southern interstate connection out of the area, and if I-87 construction advances in North Carolina, there is likely to be more support to complete the connection to I-64 by upgrading 12 miles of limited-access US-17 rather than 60 miles of non-limited-access US-58 that would require at least 20 miles built on new location. Less mileage, less construction cost ultimately for Virginia with North Carolina bearing most of the costs, and completing a Hampton Roads interstate link to I-95 South and Raleigh, albeit slightly longer distance than the existing US-58 corridor.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2020, 08:35:31 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 15, 2020, 07:24:05 PM
If VA ever decides to upgrade US 58 with or without tolls, I-87 will be an even less valuable as an option to Norfolk and Virginia Beach for traffic originating from I-95 and points west.
I do agree with this, and ultimately would rather see US-58 the main interstate route out to I-95 South in a perfect world, but VDOT's recent study indicated it would cost at least $2+ billion, and I'd say the chances of any major upgrade is slim to none, especially considering the billions of dollars of unfunded I-81, I-64, and I-95 widenings, and the entire I-73 corridor that will be prioritized over that.
With the kind of current government in Virginia?
As much as you and I seem to be in agreement that there will be a whole slew of problems (including egregious tax increases) if they are not voted out next time, one thing that is likely is large tax increases, which in highways would probably be in the $500 to $1,000 million per year range, and that could quite possibly include advancing a US-58 Interstate highway at least between I-95 and I-664/I-64, and I-95 widening south of US-58 to N.C.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2020, 08:35:31 PM
and completing a Hampton Roads interstate link to I-95 South and Raleigh,
There you go again ... :-(
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
With the kind of current government in Virginia?
As much as you and I seem to be in agreement that there will be a whole slew of problems (including egregious tax increases) if they are not voted out next time, one thing that is likely is large tax increases, which in highways would probably be in the $500 to $1,000 million per year range, and that could quite possibly include advancing a US-58 Interstate highway at least between I-95 and I-664/I-64, and I-95 widening south of US-58 to N.C.
If such is desired, I'm all for it. My point however is that with the mere concept of I-87, it may be more preferred to simply tackle 12 miles of limited-access US-17 rather than 60 miles of non-limited-access US-58 that would require at least 20 miles on new location and just get the job done and let North Carolina deal with the heavier lifting, which they seem to be able to handle more efficiently than Virginia when it comes to new corridors.
Assuming this 60 mile upgrade of US-58 to interstate standards is constructed, would I-73 have been completed, and I-64 and I-81 also completed to 6-lanes, and potentially parts of I-95 to 8-lanes assuming the corruption of the Northam administration is replaced with a more proactive one who would oversee general purpose expansion?
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
There you go again ... :-(
Is it not an interstate link if completed? It would be the most direct interstate highway corridor between the destinations, after all I-64 and I-95 is far longer.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2020, 09:25:53 PM
My point however is that with the mere concept of I-87, it may be more preferred to simply tackle 12 miles of limited-access US-17 rather than 60 miles of non-limited-access US-58 that would require at least 20 miles on new location and just get the job done
Apples and oranges. People will continue to use US-58 and I-95.
There are those stubborn 21 or 22 extra miles that they think they can overcome by 2045 or beyond, but they can't in mileage and unlikely in significant time improvement.
Beltway: You're complaining about higher taxes, but as the extra money will be put to good use, it shouldn't be a problem.
Quote from: 1 on January 15, 2020, 09:38:43 PM
Beltway: You're complaining about higher taxes, but as the extra money will be put to good use, it shouldn't be a problem.
Not if it ultimately drives businesses out of the state. Something like VA I-73 would be easily justifiable if it was a $1 billion project. $4 billion when a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves? Hard IMO to justify at any taxation level.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 09:36:46 PM
There are those stubborn 21 or 22 extra miles that they think they can overcome by 2045 or beyond, but they can't in mileage and unlikely in significant time improvement.
Mileage wise, at most 3 to 4 miles by eliminating a jog south of Windsor, and if they were to build a new alignment over the Roanoke River wetlands west of Williamston, could get about 10 miles reduced. It's not impossible to reduce the mileage, though more than likely will end up just following the existing corridor through the wetlands and a slightly (1-3 miles) more direct alignment to the jog.
Time wise, already refuted there's no savings, but there's no loss. You're going to get to the I-95 / US-64 interchange in the same amount of time taking US-58 vs. I-87, give or take a couple minutes. The route one takes is merely up to the following preferences - 55-60 mph for half the trip vs. 70 mph thruout, urban congestion and signals thru Suffolk plus congested interstates / freeways to get to Suffolk vs. free-flow trip immediately out of the area, arterial for half the trip vs. freeway thruout, 55 miles of I-95 congestion during peak weekends vs. avoid I-95 entirely, etc.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 09:36:46 PM
People will continue to use US-58 and I-95.
If I-87 is completed, no traffic will be shifted, and the majority will continue using US-58? I would say it's more of a 50-50 split, if not more. An interstate highway is far more attractive to a motorist, especially long-distance, over arterial. I've dealt with US-58 and US-17 arterial for over a decade. I would gladly drive the extra distance with no time loss to be on a 70 mph interstate highway throughout right out of the area, plus less traffic, and avoids I-95.
Was the proposed US-460 vanity to I-64? It would have added 15 miles to a trip plus a toll (proposed about $4, or 20-30 miles of gas) from Norfolk to Ashland. I would gladly use it to avoid I-64, plus as a connection to I-85 South, even with additional mileage and a toll. You were a heavy advocate of this road.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 09:45:41 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 15, 2020, 09:38:43 PM
Beltway: You're complaining about higher taxes, but as the extra money will be put to good use, it shouldn't be a problem.
Not if it ultimately drives businesses out of the state. Something like VA I-73 would be easily justifiable if it was a $1 billion project. $4 billion when a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves? Hard IMO to justify at any taxation level.
Probably closer to $6 or $8 billion at this rate. The Martinsville Southern Connector was $600 - $800 million alone for 6 miles of freeway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2020, 09:48:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 09:36:46 PM
There are those stubborn 21 or 22 extra miles that they think they can overcome by 2045 or beyond, but they can't in mileage and unlikely in significant time improvement.
Mileage wise, at most 3 to 4 miles by eliminating a jog south of Windsor, and if they were to build a new alignment over the Roanoke River wetlands west of Williamston, could get about 10 miles reduced. It's not impossible to reduce the mileage, though more than likely will end up just following the existing corridor through the wetlands and a slightly (1-3 miles) more direct alignment to the jog.
This has been covered ad infinitum. They are not going to shorten more than 1 or 2 miles at most. Read their feasibility study.
20+ miles will not be attractive to motorists, even less so for trucks.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2020, 09:48:36 PM
Was the proposed US-460 vanity to I-64?
That serves the westward US-460 and everything Richmond-Petersburg south of the James River, and several other purposes, and US-460 itself is an outmoded 4-lane undivided highway (excepting about 12 intersections with left turn lanes) which needs to either be fully reconstructed or bypassed.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 10:03:50 PM
20 miles will not be attractive to motorists, even less so for trucks.
You're so focused on the mileage, and nothing but the mileage. Interstate vs. arterial has advantages that overcome mileage, and the fact the travel times are similar along both US-58 and I-87 doesn't make US-58 any faster once its completed.
Say a trip from Richmond to Roanoke, or Norfolk to I-81 South... One could take US-460 throughout the state, arterial highway, 25-35 miles shorter. Then there's I-64 and I-81, which while longer distance, provide similar travel times and are far more attractive over US-460 for every other advantage an interstate vs. arterial has. Higher speeds, high quality design, limited-access, no signals, urban areas, etc.
The only time I've utilized US-460 was on a trip between Lynchburg and Roanoke. I've done the Norfolk to I-81 South trip numerous times, and have utilized I-64 and I-81 every time. US-460 wasn't even an option I had considered.
If everybody was mileage strict, surely traffic counts on I-64 would be lower and US-460 would have higher volumes. The majority of the traffic on I-64 between Richmond and I-81 is bound to I-81 and not continuing on west. I-64 has 40,000 AADT east of I-81, and 8,000 AADT west of I-81.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 10:03:50 PM
That serves the westward US-460 and everything Richmond-Petersburg south of the James River, and several other purposes, and US-460 itself is an outmoded 4-lane undivided highway (excepting about 12 intersections with left turn lanes) which needs to either be fully reconstructed or bypassed.
An upgraded US-17 would...
Serve the southward US-17 and NC-11 including New Bern, Jacksonville, Wilmington, Greenville, Kinston, and everything Hampton Roads south of I-264 and I-64.
The idea of a US-460 serving as a routing for a Norfolk to I-95 North, or I-64 West movement then would be considered "vanity" by you
(which would be its largest use despite the additional mileage & toll) though you don't have an issue with the direct US-460 corridor being improved itself, a 4-lane roadway with 10,000 AADT that is generally adequate. Is this the same rationale when it comes to the I-87 concept? Is US-17 being improved alone "vanity"?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2020, 10:55:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 10:03:50 PM
22 miles will not be attractive to motorists, even less so for trucks.
You're so focused on the mileage, and nothing but the mileage. Interstate vs. arterial has advantages that overcome mileage, and the fact the travel times are similar along both US-58 and I-87 doesn't make US-58 any faster once its completed.
You keep acting like VI-87 will be completed in the next few years, when it would be at least 2045 if ever!!
You also keep ignoring the fact that 56 miles of the current route is handled by I-95, and that of the 69 miles of US-58 that 26 miles is freeway and 7 miles is expressway; and pretending that nothing will be done to upgrade those highways over the next 25+ years.
Sorry, it won't overcome 22 miles.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2020, 10:55:42 PM
The idea of a US-460 serving as a routing for a Norfolk to I-95 North, or I-64 West movement then would be considered "vanity" by you (which would be its largest use despite the additional mileage & toll) though you don't have an issue with the direct US-460 corridor being improved itself, a 4-lane roadway with 10,000 AADT that is generally adequate.
The US-460 freeway had 5 separate purposes.
Even looking only at the purpose for connecting to I-95 North and I-64 West, that was a $1.4 billion project to build 59 miles of freeway between I-95 and the Suffolk Bypass, and considering how much it is costing to expand the Hampton Roads bridge-tunnels ($3.7 billion for I-64, probably about the same for I-664), that in and of itself is a very worthwhile project to connect I-95 to South Hampton Roads (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Suffolk) directly without having to cross the Hampton Roads estuary and thus removing traffic or forestalling traffic increases on the bridge-tunnels, in addition to drivers not having to deal with the bridge-tunnels.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 11:21:38 PM
Even looking only at the purpose for connecting to I-95 North and I-64 West, that was a $1.4 billion project to build 59 miles of freeway between I-95 and the Suffolk Bypass, and considering how much it is costing to expand the Hampton Roads bridge-tunnels ($3.7 billion for I-64, probably about the same for I-664), that in and of itself is a very worthwhile project to connect I-95 to South Hampton Roads (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Suffolk) directly without having to cross the Hampton Roads estuary and thus removing traffic or forestalling traffic increases on the bridge-tunnels, in addition to drivers not having to deal with the bridge-tunnels.
I agree... but you're now contradicting yourself here. You claim an interstate corridor along US-17 and US-64 that adds 20 miles to a trip is "vanity" due to added mileage, merely a single gallon of gas for the average passenger vehicle ($2.50 for example), yet an interstate corridor along US-460 would also add 20 miles to a trip, -plus- a toll, which in total is over two gallons of gas for the average passenger vehicle (at least $5.00 for example) if not more depending on how high the toll is. Under your definition, the US-460 freeway for the purpose of connecting Hampton Roads to I-95 North would be "vanity". In reality though, both corridors have minor additional expenses for passenger vehicles, would supplement the existing I-64 and US-58 corridors, and attract traffic from those corridors. A completed US-460 freeway would also provide an interstate corridor from Hampton Roads to I-85 South, though, again, you would consider this "vanity" due to 20 additional miles, and travel time being similar to existing US-58.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 11:21:38 PM
Sorry, it won't overcome 22 miles.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 11:21:38 PM
and pretending that nothing will be done to upgrade those highways over the next 25+ years.
I-64 HRBT expansion to 8-lanes, I-64 widening to Richmond to 6-lanes, I-64 HRB widening to 6-lanes, I-664 MMMBT expansion to 8-lanes, etc.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 11:21:38 PM
You also keep ignoring the fact that 54 miles of the current route is handled by I-95,
The only segment that is posted along at 70 mph along the entire route.
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2020, 11:21:38 PM
and that of the 69 miles of US-58 that 22 miles is freeway and 6 miles is expressway;
All of which is posted at 60 mph or below.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 10:40:14 AM
I agree... but you're now contradicting yourself here.
I'm not contradicting anything, you're just playing word games to try to justify your pet highway project.
The US-460 Freeway had 5 separate justifications, with connecting Richmond to South Hampton Roads without crossing the Hampton Roads estuary being only one of them. Even then it wasn't being proposed to be an Interstate highway, although it would have been built to Interstate standards.
The existing highway is not built even to modern rural arterial standards, and cannot be upgraded to such without spending at least 60% of the cost of building a completely new alignment, and that would be about 80% if bypasses were built at the 3 biggest towns. So we could call this 59 mile new highway an arterial bypass of the 6 towns along the route, plus a developed area of the city of Suffolk.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 11:25:59 AM
I'm not contradicting anything, you're just playing word games to try to justify your pet highway project.
20 additional miles + a toll, and bypasses a congested segment of I-64 and I-664 which will see major upgrades in the next 25+ years. You've called this "vanity".
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 11:25:59 AM
The US-460 Freeway had 5 separate justifications, with connecting Richmond to South Hampton Roads without crossing the Hampton Roads estuary being only one of them.
What were the other 4?
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 11:25:59 AM
The existing highway is not built even to modern rural arterial standards, and cannot be upgraded to such without spending at least 60% of the cost of building a completely new alignment, and that would be about 80% if bypasses were built at the 3 biggest towns.
The only real merit this roadway had was to act as a supplemental route to I-64, and to provide an additional interstate-grade connection from Hampton Roads to Richmond, I-64, and I-95. $1.4 billion would not spent on a 59 mile freeway to bypass a substandard 4-lane roadway that sees 10,000 AADT for that reason alone. If that was the case, a decent amount of Virginia's arterial mileage is substandard in roadway width, even if it has a median, and billions would be invested to modernize it or relocate portions of it. The roadway itself is fairly adequate as it is for the purposes it serves, at least enough that $1.4 billion wouldn't be spent for the sole purpose of providing an arterial bypass. The concept of providing that supplemental route, providing congestion relief to I-64, and attracting more traffic, despite the additional mileage was the primary driver behind the roadway and the possibility of any large-scale funding in today's day and age for Virginia construction.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 11:38:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 11:25:59 AM
I'm not contradicting anything, you're just playing word games to try to justify your pet highway project.
20 additional miles + a toll, and bypasses a congested segment of I-64 and I-664 which will see major upgrades in the next 25+ years. You've called this "vanity".
Certainly did not. The contract that The Punk canceled was from 2012, before any major upgrades were approved on the bridge-tunnels. The project would have been completed in 2017.
Computing on the downtowns of Richmond and Norfolk, 6 miles farther on US-460.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 11:38:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 11:25:59 AM
The US-460 Freeway had 5 separate justifications, with connecting Richmond to South Hampton Roads without crossing the Hampton Roads estuary being only one of them.
What were the other 4?
-- US-460 is a STRAHNET route
-- US-460 is a 4-lane rural arterial route but that segment is not built to those standards (is undivided, narrow lanes, narrow shoulders, no town bypasses, several sections prone to flooding, slow average speed of 49 mph, supranormal crash rates)
-- permanent VMS signs on I-95 and I-64 provide time estimates for use of US-460 as an alternate to the Interstate system
-- part of the cross-state 4-lane US-460 corridor
-- local access in those counties
-- connects Tri-Cities (Petersburg, Hopewell, Colonial Heights) to South Hampton Roads
-- existing pavement needs major reconstruction (outer lanes have 80-year old concrete base that needs total replacement, a punishing ride to large vehicles)
Even in my Buick LaCrosse that has a great ride, I stay in the left lane except when someone needs to pass, even though I don't like riding right next to oncoming traffic. I have been driving this highway for over 40 years, and a paving project only lasts a year or so before the outer lane becomes "bump-de-bump ... bump-bump ... de-de-bump ... ad nauseum".
Rebuilding that existing pavement is just throwing good money after bad.
Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET): This is a network of highways which are important to the United States' strategic defense policy and which provide defense access, continuity and emergency capabilities for defense purposes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 11:38:25 AM
The only real merit this roadway had was to act as a supplemental route to I-64,
"Baloney"
Back when I lived in Petersburg this project would have been very helpful, and you don't use I-64 between there (or Hopewell and Colonial Heights) and South Hampton Roads.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 11:38:25 AM
sees 10,000 AADT
Up to 17,000 to 19,000 in places and 12-14% large trucks.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 11:38:25 AM
If that was the case, a decent amount of Virginia's arterial mileage is substandard in roadway width,
In the combination of STRAHNET and 4-lane arterial, the most substandard segment in the state. Best place to start, you have to start somewhere.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 11:38:25 AM
$1.4 billion
$28 million per mile, a bargain killed by The Punk. Result of an 8-year NEPA EIS/location study that was approved by a governor and CTB of his own party!!
Would have solved Petersburg-Suffolk once and for all time.
I'll take Punks over Nazis any day.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 11:38:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 11:25:59 AM
I'm not contradicting anything, you're just playing word games to try to justify your pet highway project.
20 additional miles + a toll, and bypasses a congested segment of I-64 and I-664 which will see major upgrades in the next 25+ years. You've called this "vanity".
Certainly did not. The contract that The Punk canceled was from 2012, before any major upgrades were approved on the bridge-tunnels. The project would have been completed in 2017.
Would you support the revival of such a project nowadays after the HRBT expansion and I-64 widening projects are underway?
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
Computing on the downtowns of Richmond and Norfolk, 6 miles farther on US-460.
Norfolk <-> Richmond
I-64 - 93 miles; 93 minutes
US-460 and I-95 - 100 miles; 110 minutes
Existing US-460 is 50 miles, a US-460 on new location would be around 59 miles long, so add 9 miles to that figure. 16 miles added, plus a toll, the equivalent of at least an additional 30 miles in an average passenger vehicle.
The existing US-460 takes 50 miles; 58 minutes to travel. A relocated US-460 at 59 miles long with a posted 70 mph speed limit would take 51 minutes to travel.
That same downtown to downtown trip would take 109 miles; 103 minutes to travel along a relocated US-460, still 10 minutes slower than I-64 during non-congested periods. Of course, there's also congestion factors to take account, and could easily make US-460 faster. This same principal would apply to the I-87 concept, but since that is ignored, we'll ignore it for purposes of US-460 as well.
This is also assuming it's used from downtown to downtown. Suppose a traveler was headed between Downtown Norfolk and I-95 north of I-295...
I-64 and I-295 - 103 miles; 102 minutes
US-460 and I-95 - 117 miles; 120 minutes
14 miles farther on US-460.
Existing US-460 is 50 miles, a US-460 on new location would be around 59 miles long, so add 9 miles to that figure. 23 miles added, plus a toll, the equivalent of at least an additional 30 miles in an average passenger vehicle.
The existing US-460 takes 50 miles; 58 minutes to travel. A relocated US-460 at 59 miles long with a posted 70 mph speed limit would take 51 minutes to travel.
That same downtown to downtown trip would take 126 miles; 113 minutes to travel along a relocated US-460, still 11 minutes slower than I-64 during non-congested periods. Of course, there's also congestion factors to take account, and could easily make US-460 faster. This same principal would apply to the I-87 concept, but since that is ignored, we'll ignore it for purposes of US-460 as well.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
-- US-460 is a STRAHNET route
US-17 is designated as a High Priority Corridor between I-64 and US-64.
US-17 is also designated as a STRAHNET corridor from Windsor to South Carolina.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
-- US-460 is a 4-lane rural arterial route but that segment is not built to those standards (is undivided, narrow lanes, narrow shoulders, no town bypasses, several sections prone to flooding, slow average speed of 49 mph, supranormal crash rates)
Widen the shoulders to 10 feet, construct a center turn lane / concrete barrier, and shallow town bypasses. A similar project was recently completed along NC-24 between Fayetteville and Clinton, NC, the 2-lane road was expanded to 4-lanes divided by a 46 foot median, and 4 shallow town bypasses were constructed. The 28.6 mile project cost $252 million, approximately $8.8 million per mile.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
-- permanent VMS signs on I-95 and I-64 provide time estimates for use of US-460 as an alternate to the Interstate system
Permanent VMS signs on I-64 provide time estimates for use of US-60 as an alternate to I-64 on the Peninsula... should this be improved to an interstate?
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
-- part of the cross-state 4-lane US-460 corridor
US-460 is already 4-lanes between Suffolk and Petersburg.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
-- local access in those counties
Already accommodated by the existing 4-lane highway.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
"Baloney"
Back when I lived in Petersburg this project would have been very helpful, and you don't use I-64 between there (or Hopewell and Colonial Heights) and South Hampton Roads.
I could say the same thing about my trips to North Carolina, whether it be inland or along the coast. Having a completed 70 mph freeway would be beneficial. This, apparently, is vanity though.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
Up to 17,000 to 19,000 in places and 12-14% large trucks.
Near I-295 and US-58, that uptick is local traffic, not thru traffic.
US-17 has similar volumes and truck volumes.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
-- connects Tri-Cities (Petersburg, Hopewell, Colonial Heights) to South Hampton Roads
Already accommodated by the existing 4-lane highway.
US-17 provides a direct link between Hampton Roads, Elizabeth City (population 20,000), Greenville (population 100,000), along with New Bern (population 30,000), Jacksonville (population 73,000), Wilmington (population 120,000), and Myrtle Beach (population 450,000) further down US-17 beyond US-64.
At 286 miles long, US-17 through North Carolina serves 13 counties and a population of 826,178, plus other major population centers such as Greenville not directly on the US-17 corridor.
A completed freeway along the US-17 corridor from Norfolk to Myrtle Beach, in addition to I-73 between I-95 and Myrtle Beach, would be a logical addition to the interstate system to provide coastal access that is bypassed by I-95 on its inland routing. Over the next 10 years, the remaining 2-lane segments of US-17 should be completed, and a 4-lane corridor will exist throughout the state. The segment from Hampstead to South Carolina, along with the segment from Williamston to Norfolk, roughly 155 miles of the 286 mile long route, or 54% of the route, are slated to be upgraded / relocated to interstate standards by 2045. Completing the remaining 131 miles to freeway standards in between, keeping in mind that 39 miles is already / will be completed to freeway standards, would be a valuable project.
The projects to upgrade US-17 to freeway standards for the I-87 corridor actually do have merit outside of the Raleigh-Norfolk connection itself, and is the only large scale upgrades that will be constructed for I-87. US-64 is already a completed 70 mph freeway from Raleigh to Williamston, finished around 2006.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
$28 million per mile, a bargain killed by The Punk.
Highway projects should still reasonably be around this rate. Why have highway construction costs risen to $50 - $100 million per mile in Virginia, yet our neighbors to the south have managed to maintain a consistent $25 - $30 million per mile construction cost?
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
Would have solved Petersburg-Suffolk once and for all time.
Agreed, and it was a shame to see the project abandoned.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 02:39:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
Computing on the downtowns of Richmond and Norfolk, 6 miles farther on US-460.
Existing US-460 is 50 miles, a US-460 on new location would be around 59 miles long, so add 9 miles to that figure. 16 miles added, plus a toll, the equivalent of at least an additional 30 miles in an average passenger vehicle.
Correct on the existing length, about 50.2 miles.
Incorrect on the new, the selected southerly relocation was 52 miles long. I have a copy of the DEIS and FEIS.
So those calculations are put in File 13.
""""
<..>
||
\__/
"File 13!"
The elephant in the room is the Hampton Roads estuary.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 02:39:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
-- US-460 is a STRAHNET route
US-17 is designated as a High Priority Corridor between I-64 and US-64.
US-17 is also designated as a STRAHNET corridor from Windsor to South Carolina.
US-64 is neither.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 02:39:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
-- US-460 is a 4-lane rural arterial route but that segment is not built to those standards (is undivided, narrow lanes, narrow shoulders, no town bypasses, several sections prone to flooding, slow average speed of 49 mph, supranormal crash rates)
Widen the shoulders to 10 feet, construct a center turn lane / concrete barrier, and shallow town bypasses. A similar project was recently completed along NC-24 between Fayetteville and Clinton, NC, the 2-lane road was expanded to 4-lanes divided by a 46 foot median, and 4 shallow town bypasses were constructed. The 28.6 mile project cost $252 million, approximately $8.8 million per mile.
US-460 can't just be widened, it needs full reconstruction including leveling the grade in many places and raising the grade in flood-prone areas. All new pavement, all new drainage. The roadway prism needs to be at least 25 wider on each side, and there would be many major wetland impacts. All that for only a modest gain in highway design and capacity.
I see that NC-24 has no grade separations (it is only a local arterial). US-460 would need interchanges at each end of each bypass and at major junctions, at least that was part of the estimate. Minimum of 3 bypasses, realistically 6 (that was in the estimate), and the Windsor Bypass would extend to the Suffolk Bypass. So about 50% of the route would be bypasses, and each end of each bypass would need to be transitioned back to the current route.
It is better just to the bypass the whole thing, at very minimum a 4-lane at-grade expressway, and realistically the major junctions need interchanges, so just go ahead and grade separate the whole thing, and don't need to transition in and out of the existing highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 02:39:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
-- part of the cross-state 4-lane US-460 corridor
US-460 is already 4-lanes between Suffolk and Petersburg.
Far below modern arterial standards and capacity, as detailed previously.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 02:39:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
Up to 17,000 to 19,000 in places and 12-14% large trucks.
Near I-295 and US-58, that uptick is local traffic, not thru traffic.
The truck percentages are for the whole route, and those higher volume areas create congestion, traffic signals, delays and crashes.
Like with anti-roads obstructionists, you are pursuing the tactic of focusing down on one element (long-distance inter-state travel in this case) and trying to dispute the project based on that one item, when in fact the project was approved based on a multiplicity of justifications.
Even if you don't agree with all the official justifications, they are what was judged valid by the project approvers at the time.
You are also using my support (at least at the time and cost in 2012) of the US-460 Freeway to try to justify your support of Vanity Interstate Route VI-87.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 04:48:25 PM
Correct on the existing length, about 50.2 miles.
Incorrect on the new, the selected southerly relocation was 52 miles long. I have a copy of the DEIS and FEIS.
You're the one who provided the 59 mile figure.
Still 14 miles + a toll to overcome costing the equivalent of at least 30 miles. Again, a minor expense for a motorist, but you claim this minor expense makes a whole project vanity.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 04:48:25 PM
US-64 is neither.
US-64 is apart of High Priority Corridor 13 between Raleigh and Williamston.
The entire US-64 / US-17 corridor from Raleigh to the North Carolina border is also designated as Future Interstate 87, approved by the FHWA, AASHTO, and Congress under the FAST Act in 2015.
Already mentioned numerous times, US-64 is a completed 70 mph freeway from Raleigh to Williamston. While the entire corridor is designated as Future Interstate 87, US-17 is the only portion that is not up to freeway standards where upgrades would be required. I already mentioned above US-17 has its own merits apart from the I-87 corridor to be upgraded. At this rate, you're taking an upgraded US-17, an existing US-64 freeway, and merely slapping an I-87 shield and branding it as a "Norfolk-Raleigh interstate" using both corridors combined. You're focusing your arguments on this corridor solely at the name at this point.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 04:48:25 PM
I see that NC-24 has no grade separations (it is only a local arterial).
Except it has a full cloverleaf interchange on the eastern end at I-95, a diamond interchange with US-421 on the western end, and has an interchange with NC-242 in the middle. It connects Fayetteville, Clinton, and Jacksonville. It's not a "minor arterial".
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 04:48:25 PM
Like with anti-roads obstructionists, you are pursuing the tactic of focusing down on one element (long-distance inter-state travel in this case) and trying to dispute the project based on that one item, when in fact the project was approved based on a multiplicity of justifications.
Even if you don't agree with all the official justifications, they are what was judged valid by the project approvers at the time.
The hypocrisy is screaming right now in regards to upgrading US-17.
Like with anti-roads obstructionists, you are pursuing the tactic of focusing down on one element (mileage, specifically of the I-87 corridor concept) and trying to dispute the project based on that one item, when in fact the project was approved based on a multiplicity of justifications.
Even if you don't agree with all the official justifications, they are what is being judged valid by the project approvers at the time (in this case NCDOT and the HRTPO).
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 05:13:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 04:48:25 PM
Correct on the existing length, about 50.2 miles.
Incorrect on the new, the selected southerly relocation was 52 miles long. I have a copy of the DEIS and FEIS.
You're the one who provided the 59 mile figure.
Must of been a mistype where I was thinking 49 miles on the existing highway between I-295 and the Suffolk Bypass.
[...nope...]
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 05:13:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 04:48:25 PM
US-64 is neither.
US-64 is apart of High Priority Corridor 13 between Raleigh and Williamston.
HPC does not necessarily require a freeway or even an expressway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 05:13:39 PM
The entire US-64 / US-17 corridor from Raleigh to the North Carolina border is also designated as Future Interstate 87, approved by the FHWA, AASHTO, and Congress under the FAST Act in 2015.
Vanity Interstate highway designation, as I have repeatedly hammered down.
[...nope...snip...]
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 05:13:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 04:48:25 PM
I see that NC-24 has no grade separations (it is only a local arterial).
Except it has a full cloverleaf interchange on the eastern end at I-95, a diamond interchange with US-421 on the western end, and has an interchange with NC-242 in the middle. It connects Fayetteville, Clinton, and Jacksonville. It's not a "minor arterial".
Well, it wouldn't connect at grade with I-95, now, would it?
So two interchanges.
Not "minor," per se, but it is "local."
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 05:13:39 PM
The hypocrisy is screaming right now in regards to upgrading US-17.
Vanity Interstate highways are bad projects, as I have repeatedly hammered out.
Dodging the bullets and creatively snipping I see...
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 10:51:53 PM
[...nope...]
Still 14 miles + a toll to overcome costing the equivalent of at least 30 miles. Again, a minor expense for a motorist, but you claim this minor expense makes a whole project vanity.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 10:51:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 05:13:39 PM
The entire US-64 / US-17 corridor from Raleigh to the North Carolina border is also designated as Future Interstate 87, approved by the FHWA, AASHTO, and Congress under the FAST Act in 2015.
[...nope...snip...]
Already mentioned numerous times, US-64 is a completed 70 mph freeway from Raleigh to Williamston. While the entire corridor is designated as Future Interstate 87, US-17 is the only portion that is not up to freeway standards where upgrades would be required. I already mentioned above US-17 has its own merits apart from the I-87 corridor to be upgraded. At this rate, you're taking an upgraded US-17, an existing US-64 freeway, and merely slapping an I-87 shield and branding it as a "Norfolk-Raleigh interstate" using both corridors combined. You're focusing your arguments on this corridor solely at the name at this point.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2020, 10:51:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 05:13:39 PM
The hypocrisy is screaming right now in regards to upgrading US-17.
Vanity Interstate highways are bad projects, as I have repeatedly hammered out.
Like with anti-roads obstructionists, you are pursuing the tactic of focusing down on one element (mileage, specifically of the I-87 corridor concept) and trying to dispute the project based on that one item, when in fact the project was approved based on a multiplicity of justifications.
Even if you don't agree with all the official justifications, they are what is being judged valid by the project approvers at the time (in this case NCDOT and the HRTPO).
From the US-17 Feasibility Study completed in January 2019...
QuoteThe purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade US 17 from US 64 in Williamston to Virginia to interstate standards to improve mobility, connectivity, and safety.
Congress approved a Future Interstate designation from Raleigh to Hampton Roads via Rocky Mount and Elizabeth City on December 3, 2015, as part of their five-year transportation bill, and on May 25, 2016, the American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO) approved the interstate designation of I-87 for the US 64/17 corridor. The corridor would follow the I-495 and Future I-495 freeway corridor from I-40/I-440 in Raleigh and east to I-95 at Rocky Mount. It would continue east along the US 64 freeway towards Tarboro and Williamston, North Carolina and then travel the US 17 corridor via Elizabeth City, North Carolina, and then connect to the cities of Chesapeake and Norfolk, Virginia in the Hampton Roads region. While all of I-495/US 64 between Raleigh and Williamston is freeway, many segments of US 17 from Williamston to I-64 in Hampton Roads are not freeway and would need widening, upgrade, or new location.
US 17 is critical to economic development in the northeastern region of North Carolina. It speeds delivery of agricultural products to the Port of Virginia and local markets and serves the logistical needs of our military. In August 2013, an economic impact study was completed for the Highway 17 Association, and according to the study, bringing US 17 up to Interstate standards would generate an economic impact of $3 billion and create over 4,000 jobs along the corridor in all sectors of the region's economy: agribusiness, military, and tourism.
Quote2.1 Related Studies
Several studies have been conducted that include goals for the US 17 corridor and support the purpose and need for the proposed project.
North Carolina Strategic Transportation Corridor Policy
US 17 is identified at Strategic Transportation Corridor O as a part of the Strategic Transportation Corridor Policy. The policy identifies high-priority transportation corridors that connect statewide and regional transportation dependent activity centers. The goals of the policy are to promote system connectivity, mobility, and economic prosperity. The functions of the US 17 corridor in the context of these goals are as follows:
* Connectivity: US 17 is a part of the STRAHNET network connecting multiple major military bases. The corridor also connects North Carolina to the South Carolina and Virginia state borders, providing the only continuous north-south route east of I-95. It provides primary access to international air service from Norfolk airports.
* Economic Prosperity: US 17 connects northeast North Carolina markets to the ports in Norfolk and workers to major employment opportunities in southeast Virginia. It serves as a major route from eastern North Carolina agricultural activities to international markets through North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina ports and provides primary access to critical military installations in the region, for both employment and mission-critical military activities.
* Expectation: As a critical transportation corridor for the economically sensitive eastern North Carolina region, Corridor O should continue to be improved to ensure safe, reliable, high speed access to Virginia ports and reliable levels of service throughout the southern portion of the corridor
NC Maritime Strategy
The NC Maritime Strategy notes that goods originating from or destined for North Carolina are primarily transported by truck. Therefore, the proposed transportation system investments identified in the Maritime Strategy focus largely on highway projects. US 17 is identified as a key route for waterborne truck freight within North Carolina. The study states that the prioritization or acceleration of STIP projects along these identified corridors would benefit industries that rely on the state's maritime infrastructure.
US 17 Economic Impact Study
The US 17 Economic Impact Study was prepared for the Highway 17 Association in August of 2013. The Highway 17 Association is a a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote US 17 development as an economic stimulant for the entire coastal region of North Carolina. The purpose of the study was to assist the Highway 17 Association and NCDOT in determining the impacts of further highway investment, particularly on tourism, the military and its future requirements, farm and forest land utilization, and industrial access and development within the eastern North Carolina region.
The study finds that not only would improvements to the highway increase economic opportunities for the military, agri-business, and tourism sectors, NC's three largest economic sectors, but the future improvements identified in this study would improve traveller safety, reduce travel time, increase retail activity, enhance industrial development activity, and provide opportunities to divert traffic off of Interstate 95. Overall, the conclusion of this study reinforces the long-recognized tenet that improving US 17 will contribute to overall economic improvements in the coastal region of North Carolina.
The traffic forecast for 2040 Build is average 19,083 - 27,417 AADT throughout the whole corridor, whereas the traffic forecast for 2040 No Build is average 13,333 - 21,767 throughout the whole corridor. The existing 2015 No Build is average 9,233 - 15,698 throughout the whole corridor.
2040 Build -
Martin - 22,300 - 23,500
Bertie - 13,600 - 24,600
Chowan - 16,300 - 20,900
Perquimans - 22,800 - 31,400
Pasquotank - 15,800 - 33,200
Camden - 23,700 - 30,900
2040 No Build -
Martin - 13,000 - 22,700
Bertie - 8,800 - 20,600
Chowan - 11,500 - 12,300
Perquimans - 16,800 - 24,900
Pasquotank - 11,500 - 26,700
Camden - 18,400 - 23,400
2015 No Build (existing) -
Martin - 9,800 - 17,500
Bertie - 6,200 - 15,000
Chowan - 7,700 - 9,900
Perquimans - 11,200 - 17,200
Pasquotank - 7,900 - 18,400
Camden - 12,600 - 16,100
Per the study, there is a projected increase of traffic, and upgrading US-17 to interstate standards would attract additional traffic. With a maintained average of about 20,000 AADT, up to 30,000 AADT in the northern counties, certainly could warrant an interstate standard roadway. Assuming these increased levels of traffic carried into the city of Chesapeake, the southern 12 miles would likely have at least 20,000 - 30,000 AADT with Dominion Blvd likely carrying over 50,000 AADT. If this is the case, then US-17 in the city of Chesapeake would certainly warrant being upgraded to interstate standards as well, at minimum interchanges with Grassfield Pkwy, Scenic Pkwy, and George Washington Hwy.
I'm sure you'll just claim these figures were drafted by economic developers though.
A relocated US-460 is just as "vanity" as an upgraded US-17 through North Carolina, any way you slice it.
fuck
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 10:57:03 PM
The traffic forecast for 2040 Build is average 19,083 - 27,417 AADT throughout the whole corridor, whereas the traffic forecast for 2040 No Build is average 13,333 - 21,767 throughout the whole corridor. The existing 2015 No Build is average 9,233 - 15,698 throughout the whole corridor.
IOW, the seeking of and enablement of metastatic population growth in a mostly rural area with a smattering of small towns and a few small cities.
Why would this be sought and/or considered desirable?
I'll weigh in. VDOT has designated both I-64 and US-460 as the two primary routes to Norfolk and Virginia Beach from Richmond (I-295) and vice versa. Both routes are competitive in terms of trip times, especially during peak seasonal traffic. I know this because I pass the travel time sign everyday on my way to work. A US 460 Toll Road would have had competitive or better travel times to Norfolk/VA Beach and vice versa. More importantly this road would reduce trucks and improve safety on the existing US-460 and I-64 routes. As a toll road the cost of construction and maintenance would ultimately be passed to the road users. I see that as a plus as well. I don't see the US-460 toll road proposal as vanity at all.
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 19, 2020, 02:50:57 PM
I'll weigh in. VDOT has designated both I-64 and US-460 as the two primary routes to Norfolk and Virginia Beach from Richmond (I-295) and vice versa. Both routes are competitive in terms of trip times, especially during peak seasonal traffic. I know this because I pass the travel time sign everyday on my way to work. A US 460 Toll Road would have had competitive or better travel times to Norfolk/VA Beach and vice versa. More importantly this road would reduce trucks and improve safety on the existing US-460 and I-64 routes. As a toll road the cost of construction and maintenance would ultimately be passed to the road users. I see that as a plus as well. I don't see the US-460 toll road proposal as vanity at all.
My OnStar nav system estimates about the same mileage and 20 more minutes to follow US-460 as opposed to I-64, on my trips between the City of Richmond and the Centerville area of Virginia Beach.
In high volume times, the HRBT and approaches can easily have 15 or 20 minutes of delay, and there can be problems on other parts of I-64. IOW it is pretty much a no-brainer to use US-460 as the default, and that is with today's US-460, as it rarely has delays.
BTW, this is a common tactic with Sprjus4, with many projects. I criticize one of his pet projects, and he finds project that I support and then tries to draw parallels between the two projects and then attacks my opposition to his project on that basis, and even alleges "hypocrisy" if I don't support his project.
The US-460 Freeway has many justifications as I have posted, and I support or reject a project based on its own merits, and decide whether its financial and environmental costs are justifiable.
Quote from: Beltway on January 19, 2020, 03:09:28 PM
In high volume times, the HRBT and approaches can easily have 15 or 20 minutes of delay, and there can be problems on other parts of I-64. IOW it is pretty much a no-brainer to use US-460 as the default, and that is with today's US-460, as it rarely has delays.
Agreed, and it serves as a good alternative to I-64. I used US-460 frequently earlier in 2019 when I was making more frequent trips to the north over I-64. It's a shame the road never got built ultimately. When was it originally supposed to be open to traffic?
Quote from: Beltway on January 19, 2020, 03:09:28 PM
BTW, this is a common tactic with Sprjus4, with many projects. I criticize one of his pet projects, and he finds project that I support and then tries to draw parallels between the two projects and then attacks my opposition to his project on that basis, and even alleges "hypocrisy" if I don't support his project.
The US-460 Freeway has many justifications as I have posted, and I support or reject a project based on its own merits, and decide whether its financial and environmental costs are justifiable.
Let's agree to disagree here, quite frankly I'm tired of this continuous back-and-forth. You oppose the project for a variety of reasons, and I'm supportive of it for a variety of different reasons. You have your thoughts on the project's potential and success rate, and I have my thoughts on it. You have your thoughts on whether it acts as a supplemental route to the existing routing, and I have my thoughts on it. We've dragged this argument on far too long at this point, and nothing has resulted or will result. This applies to the entire I-87 concept, and upgrades to US-17.
I'll continue to post about the corridor when new developments come of it, you will continue to spew your one off comments, "vanity", etc. and that's fine. You get your thoughts across. I've already gotten mine across. I'm not going to waste any more effort in responding.
(1) Discussion of routes between Richmond and Norfolk are not appropriate for the North Carolina thread.
(2) The purpose of the I-87 proposal is to provide an interstate corridor through northeastern North Carolina, and in IMO no one in North Carolina has any real reason to care whether it would provide a "better" route between Norfolk and Raleigh, whatever that means.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 19, 2020, 07:00:08 PM
(1) Discussion of routes between Richmond and Norfolk are not appropriate for the North Carolina thread.
I would tend to agree ... this is where US-460 was injected into the discussion --
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 15, 2020, 09:48:36 PM
Was the proposed US-460 vanity to I-64?
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 19, 2020, 07:00:08 PM
(2) The purpose of the I-87 proposal is to provide an interstate corridor through northeastern North Carolina, and in IMO no one in North Carolina has any real reason to care whether it would provide a "better" route between Norfolk and Raleigh, whatever that means.
But the thread is "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)"
HPC 13 runs between Raleigh and Norfolk.
The advocates of the Interstate designation (at least some of them) use that "better" claim at the heart of their advocacy.
Quote from: Beltway on January 19, 2020, 07:24:38 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 19, 2020, 07:00:08 PM
(2) The purpose of the I-87 proposal is to provide an interstate corridor through northeastern North Carolina, and in IMO no one in North Carolina has any real reason to care whether it would provide a "better" route between Norfolk and Raleigh, whatever that means.
But the thread is "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)"
HPC 13 runs between Raleigh and Norfolk.
The advocates of the Interstate designation (at least some of them) use that "better" claim at the heart of their advocacy.
Yes, I agree they did that. But honestly, what the advocates of the Interstate designation wanted was an interstate corridor through northeastern North Carolina, and they just threw in whatever they could think of to support that idea.
It was appropriate to discuss the comparison of the I-87 proposal and US 58/I-95 in this thread, but the discussion has gotten pretty old and tired by this time. It really turns on the definition of "better." Better for what? Today, if I have to drive from Raleigh to Norfolk, I know that I-95/US 58 is the shortest and quickest route. But I hate driving in the I-95 traffic, so I would certainly consider the I-87 route (US64/US17) even in its current state.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 20, 2020, 05:54:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 19, 2020, 07:24:38 PM
But the thread is "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)". HPC 13 runs between Raleigh and Norfolk.
The advocates of the Interstate designation (at least some of them) use that "better" claim at the heart of their advocacy.
Yes, I agree they did that. But honestly, what the advocates of the Interstate designation wanted was an interstate corridor through northeastern North Carolina, and they just threw in whatever they could think of to support that idea.
But that means that they want to shanghai Virginia into participating in their scheme. One my basic gripes from the beginning.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 20, 2020, 05:54:11 PM
It was appropriate to discuss the comparison of the I-87 proposal and US 58/I-95 in this thread, but the discussion has gotten pretty old and tired by this time. It really turns on the definition of "better." Better for what? Today, if I have to drive from Raleigh to Norfolk, I know that I-95/US 58 is the shortest and quickest route. But I hate driving in the I-95 traffic, so I would certainly consider the I-87 route (US64/US17) even in its current state.
That segment of I-95 works well the vast majority of the time, but it does get congested sometimes at high-peak times. I'm not sure how many motorists are even aware of the US-64/US-17 route.
Highways connect eastern North Carolina to the future (https://www.reflector.com/news/highways-connect-eastern-north-carolina-to-the-future/article_59c435e1-bf4b-5315-b28d-8edab6b097dd.html)
QuoteThree future interstate highways will further streamline existing eastern North Carolina corridors and will continue spurring economic development and population growth in the region during the next several decades, according to developers and transportation officials. These routes are future Interstate 87 between Raleigh and Norfolk, future I-587 between Zebulon and Greenville and future I-42 between Raleigh and Morehead City.
There are no accurate projections of when these highways will become fully completed interstates, since they are funded and scheduled for construction or improvement in sections that compete for priority, officials said. However, simply the promise of relatively continual upgrading of these routes to interstate standards over time is enough to quicken the pulse of economic development efforts in the counties and regions through which they pass. What are now rural, largely agricultural areas of eastern North Carolina will inevitably become better connected to highway networks, seaport facilities and rail terminals serving prosperous population centers throughout the eastern United States and beyond.
In some areas, like North Carolina's Crystal Coast – accessible by U.S. 70/Future I-42 – population will almost surely increase and generate a wave of related economic investment along with growth management challenges. In others, vitality-sapping population declines over recent decades will hopefully be diminished through the creation of many new jobs in advanced manufacturing, food processing, logistics and other infrastructure-dependent enterprises feeding off the new future interstates.
"Ninety percent of all new job creation takes place along these type corridors," said Christian Lockamy, a former Greenville economic developer who is now director of the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Economic Development Authority. "All three of these future eastern North Carolina interstate thruways have driven a lot of looks at our region from companies we've been working to attract. As a result, businesses and industrial parks are increasing significantly along the routes."
Norfolk to Raleigh
Future I-87 from Raleigh to Norfolk will be the longest of the three routes at about 213 miles. The 180-mile North Carolina portion will follow present U.S. 64 east from Raleigh through Rocky Mount to Williamston, where it will turn toward the north and follow present U.S. 17 past Edenton and Elizabeth City to the state line. In Virginia, future I-87 will join interstates 64 and 464 in the vicinity of Norfolk and the Port of Virginia.
Even though it's widely estimated that future I-87 could take as long as 30 years to be brought to full interstate status, the existing multi-lane roadway from Raleigh to Norfolk is already a big selling point.
"We're blessed to have future I-87, in addition to I-95, as a conduit to get our clients' products to the end user quickly, efficiently and when the customer wants them," said Norris Tolson, president of the Rocky Mount-based Carolinas Gateway Partnership, an economic development group that focuses on Nash and Edgecombe counties. "Even now on present U.S. 64 and U.S. 17, the Norfolk port is within a two-hour drive from Rocky Mount, while the ports at Morehead City and Wilmington are both only two hours and fifteen minutes away. That makes the Rocky Mount area a great logistical hub – especially when you add in the new CCX intermodal rail terminal here that will become operational in January 2021."
"As future I-87 is upgraded to full interstate status in the coming years, Nash and Edgecombe counties can only become even more attractive as an advanced manufacturing, food processing and logistics center," Tolson said.
To cite just one example of what is happening already, Triangle Tyre selected Edgecombe County in 2018 for its first U.S. manufacturing facility. The Chinese tire manufacturing company will create 800 jobs and is investing nearly $580 million at a 1,449-acre advanced manufacturing megasite site located near Tarboro and just off future I-87. The project will contribute an estimated $2.4 billion to North Carolina's economy.
When future I-87 was signed into law and announced at the end of 2015, initial preliminary estimates were that the total cost of the route would be around $1 billion. But according to more recent information released by the N.C. Department of Transportation, estimates now range from $1.7 billion to nearly $2 billion. Approximate calculations of the cost of improvements to the section between Raleigh and Williamston range from $845 million to $1 billion. The preliminary estimates for upgrading the portion from Williamston to the Virginia border vary from $850 million to $945 million. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost of interstate construction.
The only portion of I-87 now finished and in operation as a completed interstate is a 13-mile stretch in eastern Wake County between Raleigh and Wendell. (That makes I-87 the nation's shortest current interstate highway.) Around three miles coincides with the Raleigh beltline (I-440), while the next 10 miles is known as the Knightdale Bypass, which extends as far as Wendell.
According to the DOT, improvements to bring future I-87 from Wendell eastward to Zebulon up to interstate standards, mostly through widening outside lane shoulders and upgrading some interchanges, are scheduled to begin in 2026. There is no firm timetable for how long that overall process may take.
Although no design work has yet been done on future I-87 east of the Wake-Nash county line, there is still a lot of work to be done to bring the roadway up to interstate standards. Existing paved shoulders will need to be widened, some bridges will have to be replaced and some interchanges will have to be improved to meet modern requirements – lengthening on-ramp lanes, for example. Certain segments on present U.S. 17 that still have intersecting side roads and driveways, traffic lights and other characteristics will have to be re-engineered or bypassed entirely. Some stretches of U.S. 17/Future I-87 around Windsor, Edenton and Elizabeth City, however, already meet most interstate standards.
"I've been working on I-87 for 15 years, and I always tell people we shouldn't be amazed at how long interstate highways take to complete, but rather that they get built at all," laughed Joe Milazzo with the Regional Transportation Alliance in Raleigh. "But bit by bit, they do get built. And those red, white and blue signs – even the ones that say "˜future' – are remarkable things, providing not only branding but focus for advocacy by local leaders and developers.
"Interstates won't "˜make' a region by themselves, since land, workforce and other infrastructure are also vital, but they do provide the opportunity to at least participate in the broader economic development game," Milazzo said.
Quote
Norfolk to Raleigh
Future I-87 from Raleigh to Norfolk will be the longest of the three routes at about 213 miles.
Here we go again, the "Norfolk to Raleigh Interstate" advocacy paradigm...
Quote
Even though it's widely estimated that future I-87 could take as long as 30 years to be brought to full interstate status, the existing multi-lane roadway from Raleigh to Norfolk is already a big selling point.
That is contradictory, and the business advocate that was quoted will probably be retired or even an old man in 30 years. So I don't see how a timeline like that could be any selling point for today's businesses, many of whom won't be in business in 30 years.
Besides, as I have pointed out many times, that "existing multi-lane roadway" is already an effective high-speed 4-lane rural arterial highway with town bypasses, and only needs spot improvements to maintain that service.
Quote
"We're blessed to have future I-87, in addition to I-95, as a conduit to get our clients' products to the end user quickly, efficiently and when the customer wants them," said Norris Tolson, president of the Rocky Mount-based Carolinas Gateway Partnership, an economic development group that focuses on Nash and Edgecombe counties.
How does a highway that won't be complete for 30+ years serve as a conduit for anything in today's world? Is he taking pot?
Quote
When future I-87 was signed into law and announced at the end of 2015, initial preliminary estimates were that the total cost of the route would be around $1 billion. But according to more recent information released by the N.C. Department of Transportation, estimates now range from $1.7 billion to nearly $2 billion.
I long suspected that the $1.1 billion was in 2015 dollars, and inflation-factoring that out to a 30 years completion date could triple or quadruple that figure (do the math, and even 5% per year for heavy construction would be a lower estimate).
Quote
According to the Federal Highway Administration, the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost of interstate construction.
Maybe. There is no dedicated funding account for Interstate highways any more.
Remaining puff statements snipped.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 12:49:32 AM
Here we go again, the "Norfolk to Raleigh Interstate" advocacy paradigm...
Haven't you realized it's never going away?
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 12:49:32 AM
I long suspected that the $1.1 billion was in 2015 dollars, and inflation-factoring that out to a 30 years completion date could triple or quadruple that figure (do the math, and even 5% per year for heavy construction would be a lower estimate).
Interestingly enough, the cost estimate for the US-17 upgrade has -not- risen. It was the estimate for US-64, if you read further, which I question due to the fact it's already a completed freeway, 90 miles from Wendell to Williamston. The previous estimate of $200 - $300 million covered shoulder widening, bridge replacements, and a few ramp realignments. The eastern 30 miles already meet interstate standards.
The segment between US-64 Business in Wendell to US-264 in Zebulon (7 miles) is programmed for 6-lane widening starting in 2026, which will also bring that segment up to interstate standards. That section currently carries over 60,000 AADT, and causes a bottleneck from the 3 to 2 lane merge heading eastbound where the 2006 freeway transitions into the 1970s freeway. At US-264, traffic splits, with 31,500 AADT heading on US-264, and 30,500 AADT staying on US-64. Beyond there, the only improvements that are needed are shoulder widening, select bridge replacements (those older than 1970 or structurally deficient), etc.
The study indicated no other sections were recommended for 6-lane widening, though I wouldn't be surprised if the 7 mile segment of US-64 between I-95 and US-64 Business east of Rocky Mount eventually is studied for widening. That section has closely spaced interchanges (8 in the 7 mile segment), many with auxiliary lanes, and carries over 40,000 AADT. Assuming this increases in future years, it will eventually need widening to 6 lanes. Even in today's conditions, it can be hairy mixing with local traffic that utilizes the freeway for only a few miles, and a lot of merging.
That study was completed in 2017 - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf
QuoteApproximate calculations of the cost of improvements to the section between Raleigh and Williamston (US-64) range from $845 million to $1 billion. The preliminary estimates for upgrading the portion from Williamston to the Virginia border (US-17) vary from $850 million to $945 million.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 12:49:32 AM
Here we go again, the "Norfolk to Raleigh Interstate" advocacy paradigm...
Haven't you realized it's never going away?
Things that are ungodly one day
will go away ... to the Abyss.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 12:49:32 AM
I long suspected that the $1.1 billion was in 2015 dollars, and inflation-factoring that out to a 30 years completion date could triple or quadruple that figure (do the math, and even 5% per year for heavy construction would be a lower estimate).
Interestingly enough, the cost estimate for the US-17 upgrade has -not- risen.
You mean the cost estimate in 2015 dollars.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
The segment between US-64 Business in Wendell to US-264 in Zebulon (7 miles) is programmed for 6-lane widening starting in 2026, which will also bring that segment up to interstate standards. That section currently carries over 60,000 AADT, and causes a bottleneck from the 3 to 2 lane merge heading eastbound where the 2006 freeway transitions into the 1970s freeway.
No question about US-64 west of I-95 to I-440 -- that was already designated as Future I-495.
Again, they need to be honest and use inflation factors to provide a cost estimate that matches when it might be built. That would be at least $3 billion if not over $4 billion, maybe over $5 billion if we are talking about 2050 and average heavy construction cost inflation of 8%, which is not an unreasonable projection.
The huge road use tax increases in Virginia (however much some of us may disagree with them), 10 cents per gallon by 2021, with the 7 cpg increment for H.R. and NoVA going statewide in 2020, will lead to major changes. Assuming likely signing of these bills into law.
Likelihood of seeing an EIS/location study being commissioned in the next couple years for a US-58 freeway between I-664 Bowers Hill and I-95, and perhaps westward to I-85. Freeways built to Interstate standards.
If an Interstate, numbers that could be used would be anything even numbered between I-44 and I-62 inclusive, excluding I-50 and I-58 and probably I-60.
Likelihood of seeing first segments under construction in the mid- or late-2020s.
The VI-87 advocacy paradigm needs to take this into consideration.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 11:37:20 AM
The huge road use tax increases in Virginia (however much some of us may disagree with them), 10 cents per gallon by 2021, with the 7 cpg increment for H.R. and NoVA going statewide in 2020, will lead to major changes. Assuming likely signing of these bills into law.
Likelihood of seeing an EIS/location study being commissioned in the next couple years for a US-58 freeway between I-664 Bowers Hill and I-95, and perhaps westward to I-85. Freeways built to Interstate standards.
If an Interstate, numbers that could be used would be anything even numbered between I-44 and I-62 inclusive, excluding I-50 and I-58 and probably I-60.
Likelihood of seeing first segments under construction in the mid- or late-2020s.
While I'm not against the idea of a freeway along the US-58 corridor... realistically, what are the chances of that actually happening? VDOT has shown little interest in in it in the past, and while a study may be produced out of it... I'd certainly be surprised if freeway mileage was under construction before -2030-. Keep in mind VDOT dismissed an EIS study to upgrade US-58 / US-13 / US-460 between Suffolk and Bowers Hill, probably the most important segment, last year. You yourself have said - 20-30 time span for construction. The project first needs to get traction (if were to happen, next 2-3 years), an EIS / Location Study / NEPA process would then need to begin that could last anywhere from 3 to 6 years, then funding would need to be identified to even begin right of acquisition and construction on the corridor, which if all went well, would be around the 2028 - 2029 time frame, assuming funding just streamlined in, which given VDOT's past record, I'd say is being overoptimistic. Again, at least 2030 until the first dirt is turned, likely later, then at least a decade or more of construction in segments to complete the entire corridor to I-95, and longer if to I-85, -if- anything was pursued along US-58.
Unless VDOT begins serious discussions about the corridor and actually funds sections for construction, I'd say it's irrelevant to this discussion. Current cost estimates are around $3 billion IIRC from a 2019 study, and may well rise further once / if studied more in depth.
Consider these two things...
What's not to say VDOT may dismiss any large scale upgrades -due- to the fact that I-87 would serve as an outlet to the south for the region, and at minimal cost to Virginia? You see it a different way, solely assuming mileage-based reasons and ignoring the rest claiming "baloney" , but officially it's viewed as a Raleigh - Norfolk highway and would serve as a supplementary route.
You're also missing the fact that billions of dollars are needed to complete major, pushed back upgrades in urban areas
(Third Crossing / I-664 Widening, I-64 Segment 2 Widening VA-168 Widening, I-264 Widening, Southeastern Pkwy, Bowers Hill Interchange, Oak Grove Interchange, just to name some in the Hampton Roads area of at least $10 billion) and existing rural interstates, notably I-81, I-64, and I-95
(hundreds of miles of 6 lane and 8 lane widening overdue), and corridors like I-73 would likely have priority over a US-58 program. The tax increases are significant, but there's also a -significant- amount of need (tens of billions of dollars) that's currently unaddressed before projects such as US-58 can take shape. This may well be another reason to complete the 13 mile US-17 leg, and leave the rest of the route to North Carolina in the eye's of VDOT, as the same connection would be provided along a southern corridor that a US-58 corridor would provide. Now, if VDOT can manage to fund tens of billions of dollars worth of projects, -and- a US-58 corridor, all before 2030, count me in as quite surprised, especially given their past track record. I'm all for it though if it can happen, but at the same time reality needs to also be considered.
Going forth, any discussion about US-58 should be posted in its own thread.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 06:56:28 AM
Things that are ungodly one day will go away ... to the Abyss.
Not anytime soon...
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 06:56:28 AM
No question about US-64 west of I-95 to I-440 -- that was already designated as Future I-495.
The I-495 designation was deleted in 2018.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 11:37:20 AM
Likelihood of seeing an EIS/location study being commissioned in the next couple years for a US-58 freeway between I-664 Bowers Hill and I-95, and perhaps westward to I-85. Freeways built to Interstate standards.
If an Interstate, numbers that could be used would be anything even numbered between I-44 and I-62 inclusive, excluding I-50 and I-58 and probably I-60.
Likelihood of seeing first segments under construction in the mid- or late-2020s.
While I'm not against the idea of a freeway along the US-58 corridor... realistically, what are the chances of that actually happening?
Good, if not very good. Things are very different from where they were last year.
This level of road use tax increases will inject $1 billion or more into road funding annually, maybe $1.5 billion. More increases could come in 2022 and forward, and more increases at the HRTAC level.
Add things like toll-assisted funding, and PPTA, and this corridor could quite feasibly be funded, and like I said the first step would be an EIS/location study being commissioned, and that might cost $20 to $25 million which is easily affordable.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 11:58:12 AM
Going forth, any discussion about US-58 should be posted in its own thread.
What I posted is directly related to the topic of this thread, as to whether its highway should be built.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 11:58:12 AM
Current cost estimates are around $3 billion IIRC from a 2019 study, and may well rise further once / if studied more in depth.
I don't recall any such official cost estimate.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
Good, if not very good. Things are very different from where they were last year.
This level of road use tax increases will inject $1 billion or more into road funding annually, maybe $1.5 billion. More increases could come in 2022 and forward, and more increases at the HRTAC level.
I'll believe it when I see it. Virginia isn't the first state to do gas tax increases.
So by 2030, I-64 will be 6 lanes to Richmond, I-95 will be 8 lanes to Fredericksburg, I-81 will be 6 lanes throughout the state, I-73 will be built between Roanoke and North Carolina, the Third Crossing will be built, I-664 will be 8 lanes, I-64 will be 8 lanes between an overhauled Oak Grove Interchange and an overhauled Bowers Hill Interchange, VA-168 will be 8 lanes, the Southeastern Pkwy will be built, numerous other urban freeway projects will be completed, and funding will be streamlining towards other projects such as US-58 and that were not a concept just a decade before?
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
Add things like toll-assisted funding, and PPTA, and this corridor could quite feasibly be funded,
...which would make US-58 a toll road.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
What I posted is directly related to the topic of this thread, as to whether its highway should be built.
You've made at least one hundred posts indicating your opinion on whether I-87 should be built, and have cited US-58 at least 90% of the time. You post your opinions, which are the same, every time something regarding the highway is brought up.
A thread for a fictional US-58 freeway upgrade exists, and if it indeed becomes an official project of VDOT, it would warrant its own thread. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20535.50
At this point, the routing and concept for I-87 isn't changing, and will eventually be constructed. This thread should be for discussing updates regarding the corridor, not filling 30+ pages as to why it shouldn't be built based on another arterial routing.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
I don't recall any such official cost estimate.
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Rt_58_Arterial_Management_Study/US_58_Hampton_Roads_APP_FINAL_06-12-19.pdf
US-58 Arterial Management Plan - June 2019
Freeway Analysis (Page 21)
Interstate Facility - Construction Costs - $2.3 billion - $3.5 billion
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 02:21:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
Good, if not very good. Things are very different from where they were last year.
This level of road use tax increases will inject $1 billion or more into road funding annually, maybe $1.5 billion. More increases could come in 2022 and forward, and more increases at the HRTAC level.
I'll believe it when I see it. Virginia isn't the first state to do gas tax increases.
17 cents in one year? Like I said there is a new regime, and I mean that in a operational sense.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 02:21:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
What I posted is directly related to the topic of this thread, as to whether its highway should be built.
You've made at least one hundred posts indicating your opinion on whether I-87 should be built, and have cited US-58 at least 90% of the time. You post your opinions, which are the same, every time something regarding the highway is brought up.
Har-har.
You've made at least one hundred posts indicating your opinion on whether I-87 should be built, and have cited US-58 at least 90% of the time. You post your opinions, which are the same, every time something regarding the highway is brought up.
Like compiling detailed speed limit scenarios for each highway in 20 or 30 years.
Like comparing the performance of each highway 20 or 30 years in the future, based on different improvement scenarios.
Fictional scenarios.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 02:21:29 PM
At this point, the routing and concept for I-87 isn't changing, and will eventually be constructed.
Anything 30 years into the future could be considered fictional, even if there is a putative 'official' plan for it. Anything not programmed into a 6-year STIP could be considered fictional, because it won't exist for a very long time if at all.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 02:21:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
I don't recall any such official cost estimate.
US-58 Arterial Management Plan - June 2019
Freeway Analysis (Page 21)
Interstate Facility - Construction Costs - $2.3 billion - $3.5 billion
Likely inflation-factored out to a reasonable completion date. Unlike with VI-87.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 03:31:27 PM
Har-har.
You've made at least one hundred posts indicating your opinion on whether I-87 should be built, and have cited US-58 at least 90% of the time. You post your opinions, which are the same, every time something regarding the highway is brought up.
It's a thread about I-87... I've discussed it's official purposes, different aspects regarding design, cost estimates, and have countered some of your claims which are irrelevant to the topic.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 03:31:27 PM
Like compiling detailed speed limit scenarios for each highway in 20 or 30 years.
Like comparing the performance of each highway 20 or 30 years in the future, based on different improvement scenarios.
Fictional scenarios.
Anything 30 years into the future could be considered fictional, even if there is a putative 'official' plan for it. Anything not programmed into a 6-year STIP could be considered fictional, because it won't exist for a very long time if at all.
The segment between the Virginia state line and the Elizabeth City Bypass is tentatively scheduled to start in 2027 with right of way acquisition beginning in 2025.
Your discussion of a so-called "US-58 Freeway upgrade" that is not even an official long-range goal, not in any detailed study, and hasn't any funding identified, is a fictional concept, more-so than I-87 until it's an official proposal. I suggest you add onto the fictional highways thread regarding US-58 with any further discussion of freeway upgrades on that corridor, or if it becomes an official proposal, make a thread under the Mid-Atlantic board. Either way, it's irrelevant to the I-87 thread.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 03:31:27 PM
Likely inflation-factored out to a reasonable completion date. Unlike with I-87.
Doesn't say that it is inflation-factored out. You cannot assume unless it explicitly says. At $3 billion, that's roughly $50 million per mile which is on par for typical Virginia construction costs nowadays. North Carolina's is roughly $20 - 25 million per mile, with about $7 - $10 million for a rural interchange.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
This level of road use tax increases will inject $1 billion or more into road funding annually, maybe $1.5 billion. More increases could come in 2022 and forward, and more increases at the HRTAC level.
I didn't see anything saying $1 billion annually. I saw $1 billion over 4 years. Another that I saw said $200 million per year. But those are projections anyway. So take them with a grain of salt.
How much will be redirected to transit? Democrats love to do that. Northam seems more interested in rail than bus transit. I've seen amounts in the billions being talked about in that regard. But I don't think that was an annual figure. I think that was the total amount proposed to be needed. But that may have been for just one project.
Quote from: BrianP on March 31, 2020, 06:25:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
This level of road use tax increases will inject $1 billion or more into road funding annually, maybe $1.5 billion. More increases could come in 2022 and forward, and more increases at the HRTAC level.
I didn't see anything saying $1 billion annually. I saw $1 billion over 4 years. Another that I saw said $200 million per year. But those are projections anyway. So take them with a grain of salt.
5 cpg increase in Virginia means at least $500 million per year. So 5 cpg in 2020 and 5 cpg more in 2021, with the 7.2 cpg for H.R. and NoVA going statewide in 2020.
Quote from: BrianP on March 31, 2020, 06:25:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
This level of road use tax increases will inject $1 billion or more into road funding annually, maybe $1.5 billion. More increases could come in 2022 and forward, and more increases at the HRTAC level.
I didn't see anything saying $1 billion annually. I saw $1 billion over 4 years. Another that I saw said $200 million per year. But those are projections anyway. So take them with a grain of salt.
How much will be redirected to transit? Democrats love to do that. Northam seems more interested in rail than bus transit. I've seen amounts in the billions being talked about in that regard. But I don't think that was an annual figure. I think that was the total amount proposed to be needed. But that may have been for just one project.
Actually, that's correct. $1 billion over 4 years, not annually. The primary purpose is to fund billions of dollars of rail improvements, and additional funding towards Northern Virginia projects. While it would also inject more funding into road projects, not anywhere to the level of completing all of the projects or putting them under construction I listed above by 2030. The tens of billions of dollars worth of higher priority projects will likely still not be completed or even funded by 2030. I certainly couldn't see any segments of US-58, let alone I-73, being funded by 2030, maybe at most the Martinsville Southern Connector.
The regional tax programs in Hampton Roads, Northern Virginia, and the I-81 corridor would be extended statewide, but not seeing where they would be increased in those areas from current percentages anymore than the rest of the state would be.
QuoteDrivers in Virginia will probably pay more at the gas pump starting this summer after lawmakers voted to raise the state gas tax for the first time in more than three decades.
The legislation, which Gov. Ralph Northam (D) is expected to sign, would add Virginia to the dozens of states across the country that have raised the tax in recent years to make up for losses in revenue because of lower gas prices and the proliferation of more fuel-efficient vehicles, among other things.
The measure was among several transportation bills approved by the General Assembly in the legislative session that wrapped up Sunday.
Other transportation-related measures passed by lawmakers include a ban on cellphone use while driving, tougher penalties for reckless driving, and allowing the use of speed cameras on some state roadways.
Virginia's gas tax would increase 5 cents a year for two consecutive years and then be indexed to inflation. The tax increase, requested by Northam, is expected to shore up the state's fund that pays for roads, transit and rail projects.
"This is a giant step toward a modern, sustainable transportation system in Virginia," Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said in a statement Sunday after both chambers approved the bill. "This once-in-a-generation package will boost our economy, reduce congestion, and dramatically transform rail and transit throughout the Commonwealth. It is a win for all Virginians."
Revenue from the tax would be used to help pay for Northam's $3.7 billion plan to double passenger rail service over the next decade, while ensuring the state's transportation fund remains solvent to support critical transit, including Metro, and infrastructure projects.
The legislation is a compromise between the House and Senate from a broad transportation bill proposed by Northam to yield around $1 billion over the next four years.
The gas tax would increase to 21.2 cents per gallon July 1 and to 26.2 cents per gallon a year later. In subsequent years, the rate would be adjusted annually to keep pace with inflation.
Virginia transportation officials made the case that the state's gas tax is among the lowest in the country at 16.2 cents and that action was needed to replenish the transportation fund to keep up with infrastructure improvements.
Motorists in Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads and the Route 81 corridor also pay a regional gas tax – about 2.1 percent more, or an average of 21.9 cents per gallon, which goes to fund projects in those regions.
The legislation passed Sunday extends that regional gas tax to all counties and cities in the commonwealth to boost funds for local projects.
The legislation also reduces vehicle registration fees, establishes a highway use fee for alternative-fuel and fuel-efficient vehicles, and keeps the state's annual vehicle safety inspections, which Northam wanted to eliminate.
In Northern Virginia, it raises the local transportation tax that applies to hotel rooms to 3 percent from 2 percent and increases a real estate transfer tax that applies to home sales, changes that are expected to generate about $30 million in additional funds for Northern Virginia projects, officials said.
The proposal also establishes a Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, governed by a 15-member board, to manage the purchase and ownership of rail tracks and oversee passenger service contracts. The authority will be tasked with managing the growth in rail transportation expected in the next decade under the state's $3.7 billion rail deal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-general-assembly-approves-higher-gas-tax-speed-cameras-and-cellphone-ban/2020/03/08/cb688356-5fbf-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 02:21:29 PM
So by 2030, I-64 will be 6 lanes to Richmond, I-95 will be 8 lanes to Fredericksburg, I-81 will be 6 lanes throughout the state, I-73 will be built between Roanoke and North Carolina, the Third Crossing will be built, I-664 will be 8 lanes, I-64 will be 8 lanes between an overhauled Oak Grove Interchange and an overhauled Bowers Hill Interchange, VA-168 will be 8 lanes, the Southeastern Pkwy will be built, numerous other urban freeway projects will be completed, and funding will be streamlining towards other projects such as US-58 and that were not a concept just a decade before?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 03:46:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 03:31:27 PM
You've made at least one hundred posts indicating your opinion on whether I-87 should be built, and have cited US-58 at least 90% of the time. You post your opinions, which are the same, every time something regarding the highway is brought up.
It's a thread about I-87... I've discussed it's official purposes, different aspects regarding design, cost estimates, and have countered some of your claims which are irrelevant to the topic.
Your very first post here set up the comparison with US-58/I-95, and it has been a common staple ever since.
The advocacy articles keep calling it the "Norfolk to Raleigh Interstate," and whenever I see that I will bat it down.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 03:46:32 PM
The segment between the Virginia state line and the Elizabeth City Bypass is tentatively scheduled to start in 2027 with right of way acquisition beginning in 2025.
A small segment of the whole.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 03:46:32 PM
Your discussion of a so-called "US-58 Freeway upgrade" that is not even an official long-range goal, not in any detailed study, and hasn't any funding identified, is a fictional concept, more-so than I-87 until it's an official proposal.
Your advocacy paradigm has claimed that it is "impossible," but that is a fools errand to suggest that a twisty-turny elongated freeway that might possibly exist in 2050 won't be competing with a freeway that is 20 miles less distance.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 03:46:32 PM
Either way, it's irrelevant to the I-87 thread.
See my sig file.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 07:15:12 PM
Actually, that's correct. $1 billion over 4 years, not annually.
The comPost reporter was wrong. 5 cpg increase in Virginia yields about $500 million per year.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 07:21:23 PM
The advocacy articles keep calling it the "Norfolk to Raleigh Interstate," and whenever I see that I will bat it down.
You're going to be "batting it down" a whole lot more coming forth then.
Haven't you realized it's not going away no matter how much you "bat it down"?
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 07:21:23 PM
A small segment of the whole.
Have to start somewhere. How many miles of I-73 has Virginia constructed since 1990?
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 07:21:23 PM
Your advocacy paradigm has claimed that it is "impossible," but that is a fools errand to suggest that a twisty-turny elongated freeway that might possibly exist in 2050 won't be competing with a freeway that is 20 miles less distance.
Given Virginia's track record with rural freeway construction, right now it's laughable. If they can overhaul their past 40 years though, and complete a US-58 freeway along with I-73, and tens of billions of dollars worth of other higher priority improvements though, I'll believe it.
If US-58 is built as a toll road, I-87 would certainly be a viable alternative that's toll-free.
Additionally, I-87's construction, also known as a US-17 upgrade, improves that corridor as well. I-87 is one piece of it. A completed US-17 freeway throughout the eastern half of the state certainly has its own benefits apart from the I-87 Norfolk to Raleigh connection that utilizes 97 miles of it.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 07:21:23 PM
See my sig file.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 20, 2020, 05:54:11 PM
It was appropriate to discuss the comparison of the I-87 proposal and US 58/I-95 in this thread, but the discussion has gotten pretty old and tired by this time. It really turns on the definition of "better." Better for what? Today, if I have to drive from Raleigh to Norfolk, I know that I-95/US 58 is the shortest and quickest route. But I hate driving in the I-95 traffic, so I would certainly consider the I-87 route (US64/US17) even in its current state.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 07:15:12 PM
Actually, that's correct. $1 billion over 4 years, not annually.
The comPost reporter was wrong. 5 cpg increase in Virginia yields about $500 million per year.
Source?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 07:31:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 07:21:23 PM
The advocacy articles keep calling it the "Norfolk to Raleigh Interstate," and whenever I see that I will bat it down.
You're going to be "batting it down" a whole lot more coming forth then.
Haven't you realized it's not going away no matter how much you "bat it down"?
80+% of the route is projected so far into the future that it could effectively be considered fictional, fanciful, imaginary, fantastic, dreamland.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 07:31:40 PM
Given Virginia's track record with rural freeway construction, right now it's laughable.
The Democrat Party hasn't held all 3 state levers of power for 26 years. Whether we like it nor not, they are in the process of imposing massive tax increases.
Virginia hasn't built long non-Interstate freeway corridors, but about 400 miles of 78 different 4-lane arterial bypasses, and shorter freeways such as VA-288, VA-150, VA-76, VA-895, VA-267, VA-28, VA-168. That could change if those tax increasers get their way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 07:15:12 PM
Actually, that's correct. $1 billion over 4 years, not annually.
The comPost reporter was wrong. 5 cpg increase in Virginia yields about $500 million per year.
Source?
VDOT has a $4.2 billion annual budget. What happens if the road use taxation regime increases by at least 50%?
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 09:21:49 PM
80+% of the route is projected so far into the future that it could effectively be considered fictional, fanciful, imaginary, fantastic, dreamland.
If it's so fictional, imaginary, fantastic, dreamland, then why do you care so much?
Either way, the "Norfolk to Raleigh" title will likely be used years down the line as and until it the route is built up.
The premise of US-58 being improved to interstate standards is so far into the future that it could effectively be considered fictional, fanciful, imaginary, fantastic, dreamland.
As for the actual reality of I-87, 80% of the route is projected to be completed by 2030.
HPC #13 Raleigh - Norfolk has been around since 1991. Since then, 70 miles of new freeway has been constructed, 40 miles built to full interstate standards, the remaining 30 miles built close though lacking paved shoulders which would be added. The process for improving the US-64 / US-17 corridor to interstate standards has already been ongoing. The US-64 leg was completed in the early 2000s, freeway bypasses have been constructed on US-17 between the 1990s and 2008, and the last phase of the project is upgrading the remaining rural mileage of US-17 to interstate standards. Of the 180 mile route in North Carolina, 130 miles have been completed so far with only 50 miles remaining on US-17, meaning 72% of the route has already been built, leaving 28% left. An additional 10 miles - Virginia state line to Elizabeth City bypass - will be tentatively completed by the end of the decade. Also, a 4 mile segment near Hertford is tentatively scheduled to begin around 2025 which will construct two interchanges and bring that segment up to interstate standards. Ultimately, these two projects will leave only 36 miles to fill the gap, assuming any additional mileage isn't funded between now and 2030. The concept for an interstate highway along the corridor has been around since 1991, significant mileage has been built since, and it has only been as recent as 2016 an actual designation - I-87 - has been applied to the corridor. Over the next 20 years, the rest will be filled in phases, and the ongoing process since 1991 will be completed and branded.
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 09:21:49 PM
Virginia hasn't built long non-Interstate freeway corridors, but about 400 miles of 78 different 4-lane arterial bypasses, and shorter freeways such as VA-288, VA-150, VA-76, VA-895, VA-267, VA-28, VA-168. That could change if those tax increasers get their way.
Here's the question - has there been any vocal support about using this increased money to go directly toward rural freeway upgrades? Urban projects (notably Hampton Roads crossings) and long-distance interstate widening, tens of billions of dollars worth of investment, plus corridors like I-73 have higher priority at the moment and would likely see the majority of the funding, and it still probably won't be enough to complete those projects in full. Not to mention, billions of dollars worth of investment in rail, which is the current administration's highest priority.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 11:27:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 31, 2020, 09:21:49 PM
80+% of the route is projected so far into the future that it could effectively be considered fictional, fanciful, imaginary, fantastic, dreamland.
If it's so fictional, imaginary, fantastic, dreamland, then why do you care so much?
Why do you care so much that you keep reflexively posting/responding?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 11:27:26 PM
As for the actual reality of I-87, 80% of the route is projected to be completed by 2030.
Error. The advocacy article you posted said completion in 2050, and with the cost having increased 70% over the estimate in 2015. Like I said, it is obvious that it has not been inflation-factored.
66 miles is non-freeway today.
Quote from: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 12:12:49 AM
Error. The advocacy article you posted said completion in 2050
I never said completion wasn't 2050. I said 80% will tentatively be completed by 2030, and that is a -fact-.
The remaining 36 miles in North Carolina at any point could be accelerated. While 2050 is a -safe- completion date, nothing says it could be accelerated and done in the 2030s. That may well happen, it may well not. Only time and priorities will tell. The US-17 and US-64 Feasibility Study's utilize a 2040 Build for AADT counts.
Quote from: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 12:12:49 AM
and with the cost having increased 70% over the estimate in 2015. Like I said, it is obvious that it has not been inflation-factored.
When are you going to realize the "increased cost" was along US-64, not US-17, and has been not been disclosed as to why by any official study?
Quote from: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 12:12:49 AM
66 miles is non-freeway today.
Error. 50 miles is non-freeway today. 130 miles is full freeway.
14 miles between US-64 freeway and Windsor Bypass
8 miles between Windsor Bypass and Edenton Bypass
18 miles between Edenton Bypass and Elizabeth City Bypass
10 miles between Elizabeth City Bypass and Virginia state line
14 miles are tentatively scheduled to be completed by 2030. 10 miles between Elizabeth City Bypass and Virginia state line, and 4 miles near Hertford.
144 / 180 = 80%
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 12:19:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 12:12:49 AM
Error. The advocacy article you posted said completion in 2050
I never said completion wasn't 2050. I said 80% will tentatively be completed by 2030, and that is a -fact-.
If that is a "fact," then why will it take 20 years to build 20%?
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 12:19:09 AM
The remaining 36 miles in North Carolina at any point could be accelerated.
Or decelerated.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 12:19:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 12:12:49 AM
and with the cost having increased 70% over the estimate in 2015. Like I said, it is obvious that it has not been inflation-factored.
When are you going to realize the "increased cost" was along US-64, not US-17, and has been not been disclosed as to why by any official study?
So they haven't updated those costs yet, and inflation-factored them from the 2015 figures.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 12:19:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 12:12:49 AM
66 miles is non-freeway today.
Error. 50 miles is non-freeway today. 130 miles is full freeway.
Punt block. You're 17 miles short of I-64.
You keep saying "tentatively scheduled." That means "not firmly scheduled."
Quote from: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 09:48:03 AM
Punt block. You're 17 miles short of I-64.
The designation currently ends at the state line, not I-64.
I imagine as the segment between the state line and the Elizabeth City Bypass begins further development over the next decade, there will be more desire north of the border to fill the 13 mile gap between the Dominion Blvd freeway and the state line to complete the freeway to Elizabeth City. No firm plans for that segment as of yet though.
If we're counting VA I-87's portion though, 68% of the total 197 miles has been complete, with 32% left to construct.
Quote
You keep saying "tentatively scheduled." That means "not firmly scheduled."
Items can get shifted around, delayed, etc. and only the next 5 years have a more guaranteed schedule that still could be subject to delays.
Anything could happen going forth.
The major focus of this decade is completing I-42 and I-795 extension, both authorized in 2016 and scheduled to be complete by 2032. As those projects wrap up, there will likely be a more shifted focus in completing I-87 as more funds are opened up. This may well complete the highway by 2040.
As of now, 68% of the highway is complete, with the remaining 32% to be built.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 01, 2020, 09:48:03 AM
You're 17 miles short of I-64.
The designation currently ends at the state line, not I-64.
The boosters don't consider it ending there if they want its alleged benefits.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 10:20:19 AM
If we're counting VA I-87's portion though, 68% of the total 197 miles has been complete, with 32% left to construct.
Complete to what? Is even 20% of the VI-87 mileage designed to Interstate standards?
Besides, 32% is 63 miles, and that cancels out any of the time advantages supposedly claimed by this advocacy paradigm -- 20 or 30 years before anything gels.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 10:20:19 AM
This may well complete the highway by 2040.
Speculation. Could be 2050 or 2060, no enterprise can accurately predict out that far.
Most businesses don't plan beyond a 5-year horizon, so for them those times are an eternity, not something that they would anticipate or plan their long-term business strategies upon.
Quote from: Beltway on April 02, 2020, 01:24:24 PM
Complete to what? Is even 20% of the VI-87 mileage designed to Interstate standards?
68% is complete to 70 mph freeway standards. While only 22% is currently at full interstate standards, the rest of the freeway segments already have to full control of access, 70 mph speed limits, wide rights of way, etc. The major feature lacking is a full 10 foot right paved shoulder, though does exist on most overpasses. For the most part, it is 4 foot paved, 6 foot graded. In addition, several bridges and interchanges, notably on the older segments near Nashville, Zebulon, and Tarboro, identified in the US-64 Feasibility Study were recommended for replacement and realignment in areas. For the remainder, shoulders will likely be added in typical rehabilitation projects that are programmed in the future. In the past year alone, 30 miles of US-70 (Future I-42) and 17 miles of US-264 (Future I-587), with similar cross-sections, are getting full 10 foot right paved shoulders where there was previously only 4 foot paved, 6 foot graded.
This is where I seriously question the cost estimate rising, so far only confirmed by a newspaper article, to nearly $1 billion to upgrade US-64 alone, as there's nowhere near $1 billion of needs along that corridor.
32% rest to build to at least complete the corridor to full freeway standards.
Either way, I'd argue the highest priority segments would large amounts of money would be upgrading the remaining segments of US-17, and adding shoulders to easy-upgradable segments of US-64 through maintenance rehabilitation projects to at least complete a full freeway along the HPC-13 Raleigh to Norfolk corridor. At that point, any large-scale improvements (still figuring out what would cost almost $1 billion) can be completed to fully complete the interstate highway and allow its designation in any remaining segments.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:41:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 02, 2020, 01:24:24 PM
Complete to what? Is even 20% of the VI-87 mileage designed to Interstate standards?
68% is complete to 70 mph freeway standards. While only 22% is currently at full interstate standards, the rest of the freeway segments already have to full control of access, 70 mph speed limits, wide rights of way, etc. The major feature lacking is a full 10 foot right paved shoulder, though does exist on most overpasses. For the most part, it is 4 foot paved, 6 foot graded.[...]
OK, but that means there won't be any speed improvements on that 68%, or too small to be significant.
The remaining 32% would take until maybe 2050 or beyond, a slow process, and as I said not a time horizon that invigorate or exhilarate the business persons to locate there. It also needs to be inflation-factored out to the possible build years and not continue to be deceptively stated in 2015 dollars.
Quote from: Beltway on April 02, 2020, 01:49:52 PM
The remaining 32% would take until maybe 2050 or beyond, a slow process
What about the 40+ miles of I-42 that are slated to be completed by 2032, or the remaining 20 miles of US-117 also slated to be completed by 2032?
What makes you think any segments may not be accelerated after those major projects are completed? Or even before that?
Weren't you also claiming VDOT, a division that has a track-record of taking decades of building any project of significance, could have mileage of a US-58 freeway, one that hasn't even been studied in any detail or been shown any or little interest by any public officials as of now, under construction before 2030?
Quote from: Beltway on April 02, 2020, 01:49:52 PM
OK, but that means there won't be any speed improvements on that 68%, or too small to be significant.
A 9 mile segment near Rocky Mount is currently 65 mph, and was evaluated to be increased to 70 mph through increasing superelevation along a few curves to the maximum allowable to allow higher speeds. This would reduce about one minute of travel time following the speed limit.
Additionally, 63 miles would see improvements to see.
A 14 mile segment between Williamston and Windsor currently takes about 17 minutes to drive; at 70 mph this would be reduced to 12 minutes.
A 8 mile segment between Windsor and Edenton currently takes about 9 minutes to drive; at 70 mph this would be reduced to 6 minutes.
A 19 mile segment between Edenton and Elizabeth City currently takes about 21 minutes to drive; at 70 mph this would be reduced to 16 minutes.
A 13 mile segment between Elizabeth City and the Virginia state line currently takes about 13 minutes to drive; at 70 mph this would be reduced to 11 minutes.
A 10 mile segment between the Virginia state line currently takes about 11 minutes to drive; if the speed limit were increased to 65 mph, being a rural area, this would be reduced to 9 minutes.
In total, about 17 minutes in time savings on the existing corridor. For a route that's currently 15 - 20 minutes longer than the existing route, it would end up having the same travel time as US-58.
Wow, sprigs4 vs Beltway dominates this thread. Interesting to read both of your different perspectives and facts from different sources. :clap::popcorn: :)
No comment from me because I don't live in that route nor drove on it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:53:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 02, 2020, 01:49:52 PM
The remaining 32% would take until maybe 2050 or beyond, a slow process
What about the 40+ miles of I-42 that are slated to be completed by 2032, or the remaining 20 miles of US-117 also slated to be completed by 2032?
Different corridor, high traffic. The fact that has one priority (of course, that is 12 years, which is in TIP "wish list" territory) doesn't mean that another corridor might not have a completely different priority.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:53:38 PM
What makes you think any segments may not be accelerated after those major projects are completed? Or even before that?
What makes you think that those segments may not be postponed for 50 years? All speculation.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:53:38 PM
A 14 mile segment between Williamston and Windsor currently takes about 17 minutes to drive; at 70 mph this would be reduced to 12 minutes.
You are playing games with math and figures like you have from the beginning of this thread.
That would be 14 minutes. You did the same on the following <snipped>.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:53:38 PM
In total, about 17 minutes in time savings on the existing corridor. For a route that's currently 15 - 20 minutes longer than the existing route, it would end up having the same travel time as US-58.
Fake Math, and you are comparing something in 2050 to something today which could obviously change by then.
This time-comparison discussion should be moved to Fictional Highways.
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 12:47:32 PM
Different corridor, high traffic. The fact that has one priority (of course, that is 12 years, which is in TIP "wish list" territory) doesn't mean that another corridor might not have a completely different priority.
US-117 has around the same traffic volumes as US-17 (down to 8,000 AADT with the connection with I-40) and is mostly limited-access (with intersections) highway with only one signal to be remaining with the completion with two interchanges this year north of Mt. Olive. A new connecting freeway segment will likely be constructed to avoid the existing I-40 diamond interchange.
I agree I-42 is currently the highest priority, and significant work is already slated to get underway by the end of this year, including an upgrade of 4 lane arterial to urban 6 lane freeway south of New Bern, and about 6 miles of arterial to freeway upgrade west of I-95. The US-70 Goldsboro Bypass, a 16 mile freeway bypass, was completed in 2016. The 10 mile Havelock Bypass began construction last year, and the 20 mile Kinston Bypass is slated to begin by 2025. 30 miles of the US-70 freeway outside of New Bern is currently being upgraded to interstate standards by widening the shoulders as apart of a maintenance rehabilitation project. A 7 mile upgrade of US-70 from arterial to freeway west of Goldsboro is already slated to begin around 2025. Between the urban freeway upgrade south of New Bern and the Havelock Bypass, that segment IIRC is funded to begin in the next 5 years, upgrade from arterial to rural freeway. The only remaining segment would be from just west of I-95 to Princeton, which will likely be funded by the end of the decade. The goal is to complete the corridor by 2032, and is well on track to being so.
I-87 may well be accelerated as more funding is opened up with these projects complete and built out throughout the 2030s and 2040s. It could be announced in the next few years money was found to accelerate more segments before 2030. It could be pushed off and not touched for three decades much like VA I-73. Nobody knows, and isn't worth going back and forth over.
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 12:47:32 PM
What makes you think that those segments may not be postponed for 50 years? All speculation.
Much like speculation to currently non-proposed improvements to US-58 being improved to full freeway by 2030. All speculation with no basis.
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 12:47:32 PM
You are playing games with math and figures like you have from the beginning of this thread.
That would be 14 minutes. You did the same on the following <snipped>.
14 miles / 70 mph = 0.2 * 60 =
12 minutes 0 secondsQuote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:53:38 PM
A 9 mile segment near Rocky Mount is currently 65 mph, and was evaluated to be increased to 70 mph through increasing superelevation along a few curves to the maximum allowable to allow higher speeds. This would reduce about one minute of travel time following the speed limit.
9 miles / 70 mph = 0.129 * 60 = 7.71 =
7 minutes 43 secondsQuote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:53:38 PM
A 8 mile segment between Windsor and Edenton currently takes about 9 minutes to drive; at 70 mph this would be reduced to 6 minutes.
8 miles / 70 mph = 0.114 * 60 = 6.85 =
6 minutes 51 secondsQuote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:53:38 PM
A 19 mile segment between Edenton and Elizabeth City currently takes about 21 minutes to drive; at 70 mph this would be reduced to 16 minutes.
19 miles / 70 mph = 0.271 * 60 = 16.28 =
16 minutes 16 secondsQuote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:53:38 PM
A 13 mile segment between Elizabeth City and the Virginia state line currently takes about 13 minutes to drive; at 70 mph this would be reduced to 11 minutes.
13 miles / 70 mph = 0.185 * 60 = 11.14 =
11 minutes 8 secondsQuote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 01:53:38 PM
A 10 mile segment between the Virginia state line currently takes about 11 minutes to drive; if the speed limit were increased to 65 mph, being a rural area, this would be reduced to 9 minutes.
10 mile / 65 mph = 0.154 * 60 = 9.23 =
9 minutes 13 secondsI will give about 2 minutes were added with seconds included.
This is also speculating the upgrade will follow the existing alignment entirely and will be relocated, which could reduce up to one or two miles, and therefore travel times by a minute or two. A segment south of Windsor is one area where the existing alignment may be bypassed and straightened, reducing around one mile.
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 12:47:32 PM
Fake Math
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 12:47:32 PM
This time-comparison discussion should be moved to Fictional Highways.
Agreed, and repetitively claiming "20 minutes longer" based on a completed corridor is fictional highways territory as we will not know the travel times, speed limits, and design (freeway vs. arterial for US-58) on either route by the 2030s, 2040s, or 2050, whenever the road may be completed.
Regardless of what happens with US-58, the likelihood of this route eventually getting built out is there, as while having that link between Raleigh and Norfolk will exist and may be beneficial for long-distance traffic if US-58 is not upgraded, the other major goal is to provide interstate / freeway access from Northeastern North Carolina to Raleigh, I-95, and to Norfolk.
Really, let's move on from this endless argument. We know this: I-87 is going to be built (in NC at least), whether it is the "best" route between Raleigh and Norfolk or not. And that is all we know for sure at this point: everything else is speculation about the properties of roads that aren't built yet.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 03, 2020, 06:56:32 PM
Really, let's move on from this endless argument. We know this: I-87 is going to be built (in NC at least), whether it is the "best" route between Raleigh and Norfolk or not. And that is all we know for sure at this point: everything else is speculation about the properties of roads that aren't built yet.
Agreed, and it seems anytime I make a post, whether it be an update, news article, op-ed, etc. regarding the highway, it somehow restarts and ends nowhere, based on a user's opinion on the proposed road that has been repeated umpteenth times.
I'm not necessarily against debate, but when it drags out for 30+ pages, is filled with the same points that have been repeated umpteenth times, restarting when anything regarding the highway's development, potential future, etc. is posted, and nothing new is developed, it's out of hand.
Mods have intervened before regarding this situation, yet it seems to continue to drag on, ending for a while and seemingly restarting in the future over an article, development, update, etc. that is posted.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 03, 2020, 08:16:27 PM
Agreed, and it seems anytime I make a post, whether it be an update, news article, op-ed, etc. regarding the highway, it somehow restarts and ends nowhere, based on a user's opinion on the proposed road that has been repeated umpteenth times.
That sounds like something my Ex would say. If there is any problem in a relationship, it by definition was not her fault but the fault of the other person.
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 08:30:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 03, 2020, 08:16:27 PM
Agreed, and it seems anytime I make a post, whether it be an update, news article, op-ed, etc. regarding the highway, it somehow restarts and ends nowhere, based on a user's opinion on the proposed road that has been repeated umpteenth times.
That sounds like something my Ex would say. If there is any problem in a relationship, it by definition was not her fault but the fault of the other person.
Wait, I started the problem by posting an article?
In fairness, I understand some of the points you were arguing, but then it just went right back to the usual with the other points that are not going to change.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 03, 2020, 08:40:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 08:30:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 03, 2020, 08:16:27 PM
Agreed, and it seems anytime I make a post, whether it be an update, news article, op-ed, etc. regarding the highway, it somehow restarts and ends nowhere, based on a user's opinion on the proposed road that has been repeated umpteenth times.
That sounds like something my Ex would say. If there is any problem in a relationship, it by definition was not her fault but the fault of the other person.
Wait, I started the problem by posting an article?
That's what I mean.
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 08:42:59 PM
That's what I mean.
Should I just not post anything regarding this highway ever again then, because one user has a harsh opposition to it?
Me posting an article shouldn't turn into a large back-and-forth.
Right now, this has only taken up 2 pages. It doesn't need to go any further.
Can we quarantine this thread for 7 days?
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 03, 2020, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 12:47:32 PM
This time-comparison discussion should be moved to Fictional Highways.
Agreed, and repetitively claiming "20 minutes longer" based on a completed corridor is
Concocted claim. I have said that it is that much longer now (and it is) and that number won't begin to reduce (if it does) until about 2035.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 03, 2020, 02:09:36 PM
fictional highways territory as we will not know the travel times, speed limits, and design (freeway vs. arterial for US-58) on either route by the 2030s, 2040s, or 2050, whenever the road may be completed.
The bottom line is that whatever reduction occurs, it will be a minute or so at a time and between about 2035 and 2050. And it still won't overcome the 20 extra miles. That is way too far into the future for any business to plan their business strategy upon.
And to repeat, don't try to justify building a highway on what might not happen to another highway by 2050.
This violates basic business strategic planning principles, to try to plan a competitive enterprise that far into the future, that is so far into the future that the outcomes are essentially unknowable. And this is the
lynchpin argument of the advocates of this wasteful boondoggle.
. . . . . . . . . .
As to how fast a megaproject can (not that all do) move from initiation to construction, $3.6 billion HRBT Expansion --
In 2014, the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC) included a Hampton Roads Crossing Study in its list of priority projects, which led to the development of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to evaluate options for this crossing. In December 2016, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved "Alternative A" as the preferred alternative for this study, laying the groundwork to complete the SEIS and obtain a Record of Decision in June 2017.
The construction contract was awarded in April 2019, with an estimated completion in November 2025.
As far the previous study in 2001, they did not select an HRBT widening, they chose an I-564 extension and bridge-tunnel and I-664 expansion (the Third Crossing), so a formal proposal to widen the HRBT is a recent concept.
This project is an order of magnitude more complex than building a simple 4-lane rural freeway.
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 08:50:18 PM
And to repeat, don't try to justify building a highway on what might not happen to another highway by 2050.
They haven't. I don't think US-58 has been mentioned once in any official discussions regarding I-87 outside this forum.
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 08:50:18 PM
As to how fast a megaproject can (not that all do) move from initiation to construction, $3.6 billion HRBT Expansion --
In 2014, the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC) included a Hampton Roads Crossing Study in its list of priority projects, which led to the development of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to evaluate options for this crossing. In December 2016, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved "Alternative A" as the preferred alternative for this study, laying the groundwork to complete the SEIS and obtain a Record of Decision in June 2017.
The construction contract was awarded in April 2019, with an estimated completion in November 2025.
As far the previous study in 2001, they did not select an HRBT widening, they chose an I-564 extension and bridge-tunnel and I-664 expansion (the Third Crossing), so a formal proposal to widen the HRBT is a recent concept.
This project is an order of magnitude more complex that building a simple 4-lane rural freeway.
Here is the biggest difference with that project though. While the project concept may have been newer, the need for it was high and existent for decades which enabled the quick funding process, largely generated by the HRTAC and partially from toll revenue collected on the new capacity (HO/T lanes).
A counter example would be I-64 on the Peninsula. There had been success with the southern segments, though we are still almost 30 miles short of Richmond at finishing the 6 lanes, and there's currently no funding in sight. A completed EIS was produced for the entire corridor, though only certain pieces have been constructed.
Additionally, I-73 is yet another VDOT success story. The corridor had been authorized in 1991, had a completed EIS in 2006 (15 years later), and so far no new mileage has been constructed aside from pre-existing freeway that may be incorporated into the system.
A project like US-58 may be able to get through an EIS process over a 5 year period, but there's no guarantee funding would be instantly dedicated. Congestion is practically non-existent along the corridor, and may score low on a funding program such as SmartScale. Recall that the scaled-back US-460 project between Windsor and US-58 scored IIRC near 0 and failed hard. That would have provided a freeway bypass for the existing corridor to north of Windsor, then a divided highway to Zuni.
The HRBT Expansion and a currently non-proposed US-58 freeway isn't a good comparison to make as far as funding goes.
IIRC, the FTAC (Freight Transportation Advisory Committee) is the only organization apart of the HRTPO that has pushed for a southern connection to I-95, either via US-58 or I-87. For the 2045 Draft LRTP, they submitted a candidate project that would upgrade the remaining segment of US-17 between Cedar Rd and the North Carolina state line to interstate standards for I-87 that was included for further evaluation, though did not submit any projects for any large-scale freeway upgrades along the US-58 corridor. The highway (I-87) has also been brought up in meetings in the past, and they've expressed a profound interest in the concept.
From Virginia's perspective, a highway traveling along that corridor would be much cheaper opposed to upgrading nearly 70 miles of US-58 to interstate standards, and may well be an attractive alternative that would complete that connection with most of the cost bore to North Carolina. In the eye's of the FTAC, this seems to be the case.
Map of 2045 LRTP Candidate Projects - http://hrpdc-gis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=b8852614e73a42bfa3730963d216f2ab
Spreadsheet of 2045 LRTP Candidate Projects - https://www.hrtpo.org/library/view/596/draft-2045-lrtp-candidate-projects
I've found that it's generally better to just roll your eyes than to respond to a person who will never back down from the argument and whose mind is never going to be changed than it is to respond again and again.
https://xkcd.com/386/
Quite frankly, both sides in this fight have good points, and both sides have stupid points. At this point it does no good to blow up the page count of this thread arguing about the same old stuff again and again and again when it's not going to convince anyone of anything.
I'm beginning to think there needs to be a "unified dick-waving thread." :rolleyes:
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 03, 2020, 09:15:20 PM
From Virginia's perspective, a highway traveling along that corridor would be much cheaper opposed to upgrading nearly 70 miles of US-58 to interstate standards, and may well be an attractive alternative that would complete that connection with most of the cost bore to North Carolina. In the eye's of the FTAC, this seems to be the case.
No, that isn't and won't be Virginia's perspective, and there is nothing there other than "candidate projects" in a draft 2045 plan, and they weren't in the 2040 plan so that tells something about priority.
As you noted there is little congestion and little perceived need for any corridor upgrade on US-58 west of Suffolk, so that again tells something about need.
This violates basic business strategic planning principles, to try to plan a competitive enterprise that far into the future, 2050 or beyond, that is so far into the future that the outcomes are essentially unknowable.
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 11:05:13 PM
No, that isn't and won't be Virginia's perspective
Sure about that?
Quote
As you noted there is little congestion and little perceived need for any corridor upgrade on US-58 west of Suffolk, so that again tells something about need.
But isn't VDOT going to complete an EIS and have segments under construction before 2030? Major changes and improvements by 2050?
If this is the case, an upgrade isn't warranted, though an interstate connection is still desired to the south, wouldn't it make the most economic sense to connect with NCDOT's segment with upgrades to that small segment of US-17 (12 miles of limited access highway) at a low cost (under $500 million), rather than construct a whole new interstate highway (70 miles of largely non-limited-access highway) for billions of dollars (over $2 billion) when another is already planned that another state would bore the cost of?
Quote
This violates basic business strategic planning principles, to try to plan a competitive enterprise that far into the future, 2050 or beyond, that is so far into the future that the outcomes are essentially unknowable.
They haven't. I don't think US-58 has been mentioned once in any official discussions regarding I-87 outside this forum.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2020, 12:24:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 03, 2020, 11:05:13 PM
No, that isn't and won't be Virginia's perspective
Sure about that?
Quote
As you noted there is little congestion and little perceived need for any corridor upgrade on US-58 west of Suffolk, so that again tells something about need.
But isn't VDOT going to complete an EIS and have segments under construction before 2030? Major changes and improvements by 2050?
If this is the case, an upgrade isn't warranted, though an interstate connection is still desired to the south, wouldn't it make the most economic sense to connect with NCDOT's segment with upgrades to that small segment of US-17 (12 miles of limited access highway) at a low cost (under $500 million), rather than construct a whole new interstate highway (70 miles of largely non-limited-access highway) for billions of dollars (over $2 billion) when another is already planned that another state would bore the cost of?
Quote
This violates basic business strategic planning principles, to try to plan a competitive enterprise that far into the future, 2050 or beyond, that is so far into the future that the outcomes are essentially unknowable.
They haven't. I don't think US-58 has been mentioned once in any official discussions regarding I-87 outside this forum.
Guys, guys, GUYS!!!!! If you want to discuss US 58, I initiated a thread in Mid-Atlantic regarding just that. Forgive me for sticking my nose into your lines of fire, but some of us are a bit tired of the circular firing squad that this thread has become. I'm not a mod, and can't negotiate a cease-fire here, but if another corridor is going to be discussed, the proper place for it is a thread in the regional section where it actually exists. So have fun with it, but try to keep pissing matches out of it as much as you can -- thanks!
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2020, 12:24:54 AM
If this is the case, an upgrade isn't warranted, though an interstate connection is still desired to the south, wouldn't it make the most economic sense to connect with NCDOT's segment with upgrades to that small segment of US-17 (12 miles of limited access highway) at a low cost (under $500 million), rather than construct a whole new interstate highway (70 miles of largely non-limited-access highway) for billions of dollars (over $2 billion) when another is already planned that another state would bore the cost of?
Negatory, because it is 20 miles longer, and it will be 30 years (if ever) before it would be complete and able to do what you claim it could (if it could).
Virtually no one cares about some public benefit that -might- happen in 30 years.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2020, 12:24:54 AM
Quote
This violates basic business strategic planning principles, to try to plan a competitive enterprise that far into the future, 2050 or beyond, that is so far into the future that the outcomes are essentially unknowable.
They haven't. I don't think US-58 has been mentioned once in any official discussions regarding I-87 outside this forum.
You keep bringing it up.
US-58 gets spoken for every day thousands of times as the preferred route to connect to I-95 South from/to South Hampton Roads.
Quote from: Beltway on April 04, 2020, 01:07:49 AM
Negatory, because it is 20 miles longer, and it will be 30 years (if ever) before it would be complete and able to do what you claim it could (if it could).
Yet various organizations, including FTAC, in Hampton Roads have already supported that corridor as a southern connection.
I've never once seen the "20 miles longer" argument come up in Virginia's discussion's other than this forum.
Over the next decade, VDOT may well engage in further detailed study of the corridor, including an EIS to evaluate the needs to bring US-17 to interstate standards.
Quote
Virtually no one cares about some public benefit that -might- happen in 30 years.
May well happen in 15 or 20 years. Either way, I suppose LRTP's are irreverent then. Planning the future? Who ever thought of that.
Quote
You keep bringing it up.
You make the comparison to US-58 virtually every time I-87 is brought up, not to mention the "Norfolk to Raleigh" description, whether be a new post here or a reference about it.
I'd recommend any further discussion about US-58 be redirected to sparker's new thread, and discussion regarding I-87 be left here.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2020, 01:21:05 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 04, 2020, 01:07:49 AM
Negatory, because it is 20 miles longer, and it will be 30 years (if ever) before it would be complete and able to do what you claim it could (if it could).
Yet various organizations, including FTAC, in Hampton Roads have already supported that corridor as a southern connection.
To where? OBX?
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2020, 01:21:05 AM
I've never once seen the "20 miles longer" argument come up in discussion other than this forum.
There is very little discussion anywhere except in NE NC. The advocates are being deceptive when they ignore this fact. Based on the continued deception, it needs to be mentioned repeatedly.
The first time I saw the HPC 13 on a map it looked obviously longer, I thought "What are those people thinking?"
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2020, 01:21:05 AM
Over the next decade, VDOT may well engage in further detailed study of the corridor, including an EIS to evaluate the needs to bring US-17 to interstate standards.
Based on the fact that nothing was in the 2040 LTRP, it may well be after 2040 (if at all).
QuoteQuote
You keep bringing it up.
You make the comparison to US-58 virtually every time I-87 is brought up, not to mention the "Norfolk to Raleigh" description, whether be a new post here or a reference about it.
You make the comparison to US-58 virtually every time VI-87 is brought up (upchuck), not to mention the "Norfolk to Raleigh" description, whether be a new post here or a reference about it.
Quote from: Beltway on April 04, 2020, 01:33:44 AM
To where? OBX?
Southern connection between Hampton Roads, I-95, and Raleigh.
Quote
There is very little discussion anywhere except in NE NC. The advocates are being deceptive when they ignore this fact.
Sure about that?
Quote
Based on the continued deception, it needs to be mentioned repeatedly.
I suppose the first 99 times where too misleading.
Quote
Based on the fact that nothing was in the 2040 LTRP, it may well be after 2040 (if at all).
The 2040 LRTP was passed in July 2016, only 3 months after I-87 was approved. Considering the LRTP had been in development for at least a year prior, it makes sense why it wasn't included.
Various organizations in Hampton Roads, including FTAC, have already supported that corridor as a southern connection to I-95 and Raleigh, mostly beginning around 2017, a year after the 2040 LRTP was completed, around a year after the corridor was approved in North Carolina as a future interstate highway.
With a new LRTP in development in conjunction with increasing interest of the corridor in Virginia, it makes sense it's being evaluated as a draft candidate project and may well be initiated into further detailed study in the next decade, including an EIS determining what is needed to bring the remaining section of US-17 up to interstate standards.
Quote
You make the comparison to US-58 virtually every time I-87 is brought up, not to mention the "Norfolk to Raleigh" description, whether be a new post here or a reference about it.
For example, when I posted the article regarding the highway, you immediately went straight for the "Norfolk to Raleigh" description, "called" it out, and when I made mention of the future potential improvements to the US-64 / US-17 corridor, you made the comparison to US-58 and a claim that VDOT could have segments upgraded by the end of 2030, when it was original not even mentioned.
You're making the off-topic comparisons when they're not even originally discussed.
This is going on 3 pages now... any discussion regarding the US-58 corridor ought to be discussed in sparker's thread where's it's on-topic, not a thread about an entirely different corridor.
Quote from: Beltway on April 04, 2020, 01:33:44 AMThere is very little discussion anywhere except in NE NC.
The Regional Transportation Alliance in Raleigh has also been pushing for it. They were largely responsible for I-495 and played a big role alongside NE NC in pushing for US-64/US-17 to be designated a future interstate in the FAST Act.
That said, I think I-42 and extending I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40 should remain the top priorities as far as future interstates in ENC are concerned.
Quote from: LM117 on April 04, 2020, 07:01:06 AM
That said, I think I-42 and extending I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40 should remain the top priorities as far as future interstates in ENC are concerned.
Agreed, and I think over the next decade project orders will reflect priorities. I-42 construction projects largely over the next decade, I-795 extension towards the end and into 2030, and segments of I-87 eventually beginning around the end of the decade continuing throughout 2030 and potentially into 2040.
For I-795, not much more work is required besides one project to upgrade the US-117 segment to freeway by constructing a few frontage roads, a few interchanges, reconstructing the Mt. Olive interchange, and then building a direct connector with I-40 East.
I'd argue I-42 is certainly a higher priority over I-795, then I-795, then I-87, and unless funding gets accelerated for all projects, the order above will likely be what we'll see progressing over the next 20 years.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2020, 01:48:27 AM
Various organizations in Hampton Roads, including FTAC, have already supported that corridor as a southern connection to I-95 and Raleigh, mostly beginning around 2017, a year after the 2040 LRTP was completed, around a year after the corridor was approved in North Carolina as a future interstate highway.
Who other than the freight committee? And given the aforementioned truck/distance disadvantage, it is rather surprising that they would care. If I was a tractor-trailer owner the extra distance would certainly be problematic given the low fuel mileage.
It is not a new concept. There were NC newspaper articles posted back around 2005 on the Usenet roads group about a possible Interstate highway along the HPC 13 corridor, and the number discussed back then was I-44.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2020, 01:48:27 AM
For example, when I posted the article regarding the highway, you immediately went straight for the "Norfolk to Raleigh" description, "called" it out, and when I made mention of the future potential improvements to the US-64 / US-17 corridor, you made the comparison to US-58 and a claim that VDOT could have segments upgraded by the end of 2030, when it was original not even mentioned.
So I addressed the article that was posted, it doesn't matter who posted it, I saw something in the article and I commented on it. If I respond to news articles that you post, I can snip your attributes out of the header, so there will be no physical link to the poster who posted it, if you want.
The "Norfolk to Raleigh highway" claim always has been a major issue, and when it resurfaces it can draw a comment.
The proposal probably never would have gotten traction in the first place, without that deceptive claim undergirding.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2020, 01:48:27 AM
You're making the off-topic comparisons when they're not even originally discussed.
This is going on 3 pages now... any discussion regarding the US-58 corridor ought to be discussed in sparker's thread where's it's on-topic, not a thread about an entirely different corridor.
I don't consider it off-topic, as there is an established corridor (I-95 and US-58) that makes these connections, and the very name that the advocates use supposes that theirs (US-64 and US-17) will replace that; so that makes the discussion of both a valid topic. I would say that the US-58/I-95 corridor is integral to the topic of what is proposed to happen along the HPC 13 corridor; the advocates are making it so.
Notice that the name of this thread includes "VA" and I don't support them spending money to upgrade US-17 to Interstate standards.
So I am not going to bifurcate the discussion and put each highway into its own separate thread.
Again note that my discussions include both highways, and they are an associated topic.
Virus to delay Currituck bridge, other projects (https://www.dailyadvance.com/news/local/virus-to-delay-currituck-bridge-other-projects/article_01233039-57c8-5da4-942c-e5bb81ed54fc.html)
QuoteThree area N.C. Department of Transportation projects, including the already long-delayed Mid-Currituck Bridge, were put on hold this week after state transportation officials said DOT is expecting a $300 million revenue shortfall this year.
DOT gets it funding from various revenue sources, all of which have been adversely affected by the coronavirus crisis.
One of the largest sources of funding is gas tax revenue which has been severely affected by lower gas prices at the pump and motorists driving fewer miles because of stay-at-home orders. DOT also collects taxes on car sales and vehicle fees from the Division of Motor Vehicles.
Two major projects in the region affected by the delay are the $361 million Mid-Currituck Bridge, which would link the Currituck mainland to Corolla on the Currituck Outer Banks, and the U.S. 17 paving rehabilitation project. DOT did not say how long either project would be delayed.
Two other DOT projects in Elizabeth City and another in Perquimans County, however, are still on schedule.
The Highway 17 paving project in Camden County from the Pasquotank County line to the Virginia State line is slated to cost $6.1 million. That section of U.S. 17 is part of the proposed I-87 project that will stretch from Raleigh to the Virginia state line.
Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Economic Development Commission Director Christian Lockamy is hoping the COVID-19 crisis doesn't have long-term implications for the I-87 project but said that the proposed route from Raleigh into Virginia is already a reliable "transportation corridor" and that any delay in the project would not have a big impact on economic development.
"Companies have located all along it (U.S. 17) as have community-structured industrial parks," Lockamy said. "The expansion of that highway would facilitate probably more industry, more tourism in the coming years. But it is in no way, shape or form now a deal-killer for us to land industries. We have proved that right and left as have other communities along that corridor."
A $2.6 million project in Elizabeth City, that's also still on schedule, includes the laying of 14 miles of fiber optic cable. The project will tie all city traffic lights into DOT's main network in Raleigh to better manage the system.
Two other NCDOT projects in the city, one at Oak Stump Road and U.S. 17 and the other on Hughes Boulevard, were not on the list of projects released Tuesday that are still moving forward or are being delayed. But DOT spokesperson Tim Hass said construction on the Oak Stump Road project, which was scheduled to begin next year, has been pushed back to 2022.
Construction on the Hughes Boulevard project is still scheduled to begin in 2023 but Hass said preliminary engineering for it is "on hold."
The Oak Stump Road project is an intersection improvement estimated to cost $2.1 million. The Hughes Boulevard project will widen the road from three to five lanes on a 1.5-mile stretch between Church and North Road streets. That section will include several roundabouts.
The project in Perquimans County that is moving forward will be include drainage, grading, paving and culvert work on a 4.4-mile stretch along Woodville Road.
I was looking at maps as one does, and I realized a couple things:
1, we could build a new connector from the GSP to I-87's western interchange with I-287, and by upgrading GSP to interstate standards, it would be noticeably closer to the I-87 segment in NC. Now realistically this won't happen, but it could if given the time.
2, building a highway along the delmarva peninsula wouldn't be easy, but building a bridge across delaware bay replacing the ferry would help, and we wouldn't have to worry about upgrading DE-1 to interstate standards since the route would only go from Lewes to Cape Charles.
Quote from: Glockspeed Gaming on June 08, 2020, 11:51:35 AM
I was looking at maps as one does, and I realized a couple things:
1, we could build a new connector from the GSP to I-87's western interchange with I-287, and by upgrading GSP to interstate standards, it would be noticeably closer to the I-87 segment in NC. Now realistically this won't happen, but it could if given the time.
2, building a highway along the delmarva peninsula wouldn't be easy, but building a bridge across delaware bay replacing the ferry would help, and we wouldn't have to worry about upgrading DE-1 to interstate standards since the route would only go from Lewes to Cape Charles.
The idea of a GSP-DE bridge has been floated before and I don't see it ever happening. Not in the least because of all of the upgrades along the GSP that would be needed, or completing NJ 55 (actually less likely than the cross-Bay bridge, somehow). There is a vision to connect the two I-87s, but I would expect DE 1 to be part of it.
Quote from: Alps on June 08, 2020, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: Glockspeed Gaming on June 08, 2020, 11:51:35 AM
I was looking at maps as one does, and I realized a couple things:
1, we could build a new connector from the GSP to I-87's western interchange with I-287, and by upgrading GSP to interstate standards, it would be noticeably closer to the I-87 segment in NC. Now realistically this won't happen, but it could if given the time.
2, building a highway along the delmarva peninsula wouldn't be easy, but building a bridge across delaware bay replacing the ferry would help, and we wouldn't have to worry about upgrading DE-1 to interstate standards since the route would only go from Lewes to Cape Charles.
The idea of a GSP-DE bridge has been floated before and I don't see it ever happening. Not in the least because of all of the upgrades along the GSP that would be needed, or completing NJ 55 (actually less likely than the cross-Bay bridge, somehow). There is a vision to connect the two I-87s, but I would expect DE 1 to be part of it.
My idea would be to run 87 up 13 past Ocean City and Salisbury from Norfolk, then have it utilize DE 1 to Christiana, then 95 to the NJTP, then the NJTP to 95 and then 95 to 87's southern terminus in The Bronx
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on June 08, 2020, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 08, 2020, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: Glockspeed Gaming on June 08, 2020, 11:51:35 AM
I was looking at maps as one does, and I realized a couple things:
1, we could build a new connector from the GSP to I-87's western interchange with I-287, and by upgrading GSP to interstate standards, it would be noticeably closer to the I-87 segment in NC. Now realistically this won't happen, but it could if given the time.
2, building a highway along the delmarva peninsula wouldn't be easy, but building a bridge across delaware bay replacing the ferry would help, and we wouldn't have to worry about upgrading DE-1 to interstate standards since the route would only go from Lewes to Cape Charles.
The idea of a GSP-DE bridge has been floated before and I don't see it ever happening. Not in the least because of all of the upgrades along the GSP that would be needed, or completing NJ 55 (actually less likely than the cross-Bay bridge, somehow). There is a vision to connect the two I-87s, but I would expect DE 1 to be part of it.
My idea would be to run 87 up 13 past Ocean City and Salisbury from Norfolk, then have it utilize DE 1 to Christiana, then 95 to the NJTP, then the NJTP to 95 and then 95 to 87's southern terminus in The Bronx
That was discussed many times in the fictional highways board. IMO, it should really be I-99. Make a spur from Raleigh to Williamston. Or call that I-46.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 09, 2018, 07:25:55 PM
Another project proposed for Interstate 87 - "R-5869"
This project would upgrade 4 miles of US 17 to interstate standards from Wiggins Road, along the Hertford bypass, ending at US 17 Business.
Estimated to cost $200 million total, only part of it is currently funded.
An interchange at New Hope Rd, an interchange at Harvey Point Rd, and a flyover at Wynne Fork Road are funded for $60.6 million.
The rest of the 4 miles are programmed for detailed environmental study to determine the impacts of constructing any additional interchanges and access roads. The unfunded project would bring the rest of it up to interstate standards for $139.5 million.
As of the June 2020 update of the 2020 - 2029 STIP, two interchange projects for I-87 near Hertford remain funded for construction beginning in 2028, and an environmental study funded for "South of US-17 Business to North of SR 1220".
Based on that last description, I assumed the $139.5 million portion was an interstate upgrade of the Hertford Bypass, and had questioned its high cost for only 4 miles.
According to a NCDOT project location map (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Project%20Breakdown%20Maps/R-5869.pdf) however, this segment would actually study / upgrade a 10 mile segment to interstate standards that includes the Hertford Bypass, and the non-limited-access segment connecting to the Edenton Bypass further south. The feasibility study completed in 2019 indicated only one preferred option for this segment which was upgrading the existing alignment. The existing bridges over the Perquimans River near Hertford would be retained with this option.
Being a 10 mile segment, this would mean the estimated cost is around $14 million per mile, closer in line with similar upgrade projects.
The other key segments remaining to complete US-17 to at least freeway standards, not including the US-17 segment north of Elizabeth City (13 miles) scheduled to begin by 2027, would be the Elizabeth City Bypass to Hertford Bypass (6.4 miles), the Edenton Bypass to Windsor Bypass (7.7 miles), and the Windsor Bypass to US-64 (14 miles), most of which would be likely built on new location. The segment through the wetlands would be upgraded on existing location, and the segment near Williamston would either be upgraded or bypassed (both have pros / cons). We will likely see more progression with those segments later on this decade or into next.
Oh dear, was this thread quite the read! I would honestly rather have the US 17 and US 64 parts be different interstates.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 09, 2020, 11:59:15 PM
Oh dear, was this thread quite the read! I would honestly rather have the US 17 and US 64 parts be different interstates.
Well, an interstate to the OBX is never happening (that is, unless FritzOwl becomes president, and knowing 2020, anything is possible). US-17 as a full Interstate got shot down when I-99 in NC got the axe.
And as for the sprjus/Beltway cock-waving, it's like Discord, but takes infinitely more time. That's what God invented DMs for, to keep ticky-tacky spats out of forum posts.
Are the two of you listening???
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on June 12, 2020, 06:29:57 PM
And as for the sprjus/Beltway cock-waving, it's like Discord, but takes infinitely more time. That's what God invented DMs for, to keep ticky-tacky spats out of forum posts.
Are the two of you listening???
The thread has stayed neutral for the past few months now... let's try to keep it that way.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on June 12, 2020, 06:29:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 09, 2020, 11:59:15 PM
Oh dear, was this thread quite the read! I would honestly rather have the US 17 and US 64 parts be different interstates.
Well, an interstate to the OBX is never happening (that is, unless FritzOwl becomes president, and knowing 2020, anything is possible). US-17 as a full Interstate got shot down when I-99 in NC got the axe.
And as for the sprjus/Beltway cock-waving, it's like Discord, but takes infinitely more time. That's what God invented DMs for, to keep ticky-tacky spats out of forum posts.
Are the two of you listening???
The concept of a freeway along US 17 south of Williamston never "got the axe"; the composite coastal plan formulated in VA about 20 years ago was rejected as untenable (the nation was just getting over the tech "bubble bursting" about that time), largely because of opposition on the Delmarva peninsula. The portion in NC seems to be getting eked out a few miles at a time; the expressway section (built to I-geometry standards) south of future I-42 was extended last year; other segments have been planned or even let. Recent funding shortfalls due to hurricanes/COVID/etc. will probably stretch out the process considerably -- but from what I've gathered recently route studies for extending the section
north of I-42 back to original US 17 are in process. It's NC -- if it's a functional corridor, they'll build it out until there's enough done to provoke action to designate it a future Interstate -- which is what happened with the ill-numbered I-87: High Priority Corridor #13 was in place since 1991, and the US 64 section of that was built out to a full freeway several years later (although the sections built before '91 were substandard and will require upgrades). So in 2016 members of the NC congressional delegation simply arranged to have the Interstate designation for that corridor inserted into the HPC #13 authorizing language, and badda-bing, badda-bang, that was that! Same thing happened four years previously for I-11 over part of HPC #26. Since the segment of US 17 from the SC line to Williamston is not on an extant corridor, one will have to be cobbled up for that purpose (I-42 and the I-795 extension were designated that way as well in '16; TX did likewise with I-14 the previous year). NCDOT and corridor backers have this process down pat -- it'll probably be utilized at some point for US 74 from I-26 to Rockingham as well as US 17. But funding issues have to "normalize" before any of that happens, which at present could take several fiscal cycles, so those looking for near-term action will likely be disappointed.
An Interstate to the Outer Banks would be a good idea, go from Chesapeake/Moyock on down the US 158 corridor to the Wright Memorial Bridge, a 70 MPH would certainly speed up the trip from OBX to the Hampton Roads Metro area. Most of US 158 is only 55 MPH, with a few 35-45 MPH zones mixed in.
You could easily get the drivetime down to 45 minutes if US 158 was a 70 MPH freeway.
I would rather spend money on this idea, then the Mid-Currituck bridge, I understand that the north OBX needs another access point but a 2 lane bridge won't cut it in my opinion, it needs to 4 lanes.
But the number one priority for the OBX area needs to be getting the last 2 lane stretch of US 64 widened.
Quote from: RoadPelican on June 13, 2020, 08:54:47 AM
An Interstate to the Outer Banks would be a good idea, go from Chesapeake/Moyock on down the US 158 corridor to the Wright Memorial Bridge, a 70 MPH would certainly speed up the trip from OBX to the Hampton Roads Metro area. Most of US 158 is only 55 MPH, with a few 35-45 MPH zones mixed in.
You could easily get the drivetime down to 45 minutes if US 158 was a 70 MPH freeway.
A 16 mile long 70 mph freeway bypass has been proposed multiple times officially from the Virginia state line to the US-158 / NC-168 junction to go around Moyock and northern Currituck County, though would still leave 25 miles of 5-lane arterial highway to the bridge. If that were to conceptually be a freeway, it would likely involve upgrading on existing location with frontage roads, overpasses, interchanges, etc.
Interim, I think the bypass should be constructed, then widen US-158 south of there to a 60 mph divided highway (46 foot median) with provisions for an eventual freeway upgrade by later adding frontage roads, overpasses, and interchanges where needed.
The northern section near Moyock can certainly get heavy traffic wise with traffic lights, 45 mph speed limits, etc.
The trickiest part to upgrade would likely be the 2 mile arterial segment in Virginia south of the Expressway, because of a likely high cost, little local interest, little statewide significance, higher priorities locally, etc. all that would have to compete for funding. They were smart enough to at least construct most of the Expressway as new location freeway (which needs to be increased to 65 mph) vs. widening Battlefield Blvd to a non-limited-access divided highway as originally proposed.
Additionally, the southern segments from Grandy to the bridge also would have a decent amount of right of way impacts and a narrow corridor to traverse with little options for any sort of bypass. That would be another tricky area to tackle.
I'm supportive of both completing I-87 to the southwest to handle regional connectivity by completing a gap in the interstate system, and a freeway along the NC-168 / US-158 corridor to handle high traffic volumes.
As someone else mentioned in the main NC thread, NCDOT had applied for an INFRA grant from USDOT for the whole corridor back in February...
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-I87/Documents/Narrative%20I-87%20NCDOT.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-I87/Documents/Narrative%20I-87%20NCDOT.pdf)
...but it wasn't included in the recent list of INFRA grant awards. No dice.
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf (https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf)
Quote from: LM117 on June 22, 2020, 09:15:11 PM
As someone else mentioned in the main NC thread, NCDOT had applied for an INFRA grant from USDOT for the whole corridor back in February...
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-I87/Documents/Narrative%20I-87%20NCDOT.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-I87/Documents/Narrative%20I-87%20NCDOT.pdf)
...but it wasn't included in the recent list of INFRA grant awards. No dice.
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf (https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf)
It appears major components included additional funding to accelerate two interchanges near Hertford and US-64 upgrades. If it was funded, US-64 would be upgraded to interstate standards between Raleigh and Williamston, US-64 would be widened to 6 lanes from US-64 Business to US-264, and two interchanges near Hertford would be constructed near 2025, which would also allow I-87 signage to be posted out to Williamston. All of these projects are currently planned, though would not be constructed until at least 2028.
One thing I'm curious about is why there's a large push to upgrade US-64 - an existing freeway - to interstate standards, rather than upgrade US-17 - which is not a freeway - first. Either way, if this INFRA grant could get funded in the future, it would help to significantly accelerate the progress of the corridor. In the meantime, it appeared this year US-74 was a larger priority in North Carolina - still only $25 million - of the limited funding being competed for nationwide. I agree with this as it completes a small gap in what would rather be a full freeway from Raleigh to Asheville, pending completion of the Shelby Bypass.
If a larger infrastructure bill is signed into law by the end of this year by the current administration, more funding may be available in the future to help fund projects of these types, larger and more grant money distributed, etc.
This project will likely be requested annually until finally funded.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/I95-I87-Improvements/Documents/Narrative%20I-95%20I-87%20NCDOT.pdf
This grant was also applied for back in 2019 in conjunction with I-95.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2020, 09:44:29 PM
One thing I'm curious about is why there's a large push to upgrade US-64 - an existing freeway - to interstate standards, rather than upgrade US-17 - which is not a freeway - first.
My guess is that North Carolina thinks it'll be easier to get funding for the US 17 part if they can point to the US 64 part that has the I-87 shields and say "with this money we can get you on I-87 too".
Quote from: Finrod on June 23, 2020, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2020, 09:44:29 PM
One thing I'm curious about is why there's a large push to upgrade US-64 - an existing freeway - to interstate standards, rather than upgrade US-17 - which is not a freeway - first.
My guess is that North Carolina thinks it'll be easier to get funding for the US 17 part if they can point to the US 64 part that has the I-87 shields and say "with this money we can get you on I-87 too".
My money is on the Regional Transportation Alliance in Raleigh. They've been pushing heavily for an interstate connection to I-95, at least for the short term. The sooner Raleigh gets it's interstate link to I-95, the sooner the marketing can begin.
Moved from the I-587 thread:
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 12:07:45 AM
I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.
Quote from: sparker on October 01, 2020, 02:42:40 AM
But. It. Isn't. A. North. South. Route., SCOURN and NCDOT notwithstanding. <rant snipped>
I understand the argument here, but there is a big problem with our national definition of "route".
We have one problem that FHWA has overly strict standards for the Interstate Highway System, and another problem that AASHTO controls a political game to approve route numbers (which apparently NCDOT is gaining more political weight). But there is also a local component, ranging from NIMBY to land development to traffic congestion. One obvious local issue that drive corridor development in North Carolina is connectivity to the State Legislative Complex in Raleigh (many other states spend highway dollars for this purpose, it just seems like North Carolina has a inordinate number of limited access roads spurring out from Raleigh in all directions). There is also the hidden impact of shorter overlapping transportation corridors. Quite frankly, the current role of the Interstate Highway System does not adequately address the most important transportation needs (and you could make the argument that it is not supposed to).
North-South argument: It is my understanding that NCDOT wanted this "route" to start at Sanford, which AASHTO wisely judged to not be significant enough to warrant a 2DI. In reality, this is part of a much longer transportation corridor that connects Columbia SC to Raleigh to the Tidewater area, one that I have utilized on many occasion (more than 30 years ago). It doesn't get much usage (and likewise, not so much development) because the transportation corridor has many sections of slower two-lane roads comprised of several generally parallel routes. Logically, this transportation corridor starts further west along I-20 (but I doubt there is any significant traffic).
East-West argument: If North Carolina really wanted a 2DI route to Sanford and beyond, NCDOT could have made a more logical proposal to have the route start at Charlotte and go around Rockingham and through the Sandhills. (Break loose all of the Charlotte to Wilmington comments). But since economic development was the primary issue for I-87, it certainly made financial sense for NCDOT to focus on a much shorter corridor between I-95 and Suffolk. So we get the north-south route designation that North Carolina originally wanted over the initial build east-west corridor that NCDOT could afford. But if the freeway never gets extended beyond the Sandhills, the north-south number is wasted on this east-west segment.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 01, 2020, 10:43:53 AM
it certainly made financial sense for NCDOT to focus on a much shorter corridor between I-95 and Suffolk.
I-95 to Suffolk?
Although this is very unlikely, is it possible that the existing US 64 freeway between Pineridge and Columbia could be upgraded and extended westward to existing US 13/17/64 in Williamston, and thus become another 3di of Interstate 87?
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 01, 2020, 10:43:53 AM
Moved from the I-587 thread:
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 12:07:45 AM
I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.
Quote from: sparker on October 01, 2020, 02:42:40 AM
But. It. Isn't. A. North. South. Route., SCOURN and NCDOT notwithstanding. <rant snipped>
I understand the argument here, but there is a big problem with our national definition of "route".
We have one problem that FHWA has overly strict standards for the Interstate Highway System, and another problem that AASHTO controls a political game to approve route numbers (which apparently NCDOT is gaining more political weight). But there is also a local component, ranging from NIMBY to land development to traffic congestion. One obvious local issue that drive corridor development in North Carolina is connectivity to the State Legislative Complex in Raleigh (many other states spend highway dollars for this purpose, it just seems like North Carolina has a inordinate number of limited access roads spurring out from Raleigh in all directions). There is also the hidden impact of shorter overlapping transportation corridors. Quite frankly, the current role of the Interstate Highway System does not adequately address the most important transportation needs (and you could make the argument that it is not supposed to).
North-South argument: It is my understanding that NCDOT wanted this "route" to start at Sanford, which AASHTO wisely judged to not be significant enough to warrant a 2DI. In reality, this is part of a much longer transportation corridor that connects Columbia SC to Raleigh to the Tidewater area, one that I have utilized on many occasion (more than 30 years ago). It doesn't get much usage (and likewise, not so much development) because the transportation corridor has many sections of slower two-lane roads comprised of several generally parallel routes. Logically, this transportation corridor starts further west along I-20 (but I doubt there is any significant traffic).
East-West argument: If North Carolina really wanted a 2DI route to Sanford and beyond, NCDOT could have made a more logical proposal to have the route start at Charlotte and go around Rockingham and through the Sandhills. (Break loose all of the Charlotte to Wilmington comments). But since economic development was the primary issue for I-87, it certainly made financial sense for NCDOT to focus on a much shorter corridor between I-95 and Suffolk. So we get the north-south route designation that North Carolina originally wanted over the initial build east-west corridor that NCDOT could afford. But if the freeway never gets extended beyond the Sandhills, the north-south number is wasted on this east-west segment.
One needs to peruse the series of back-and-forth arguments that characterized the exchange between AASHTO/SCOURN and NCDOT back in early 2016 to see how the north-south versus east-west corridor characterization evolved/devolved. Part of the problem was that NCDOT was submitting
two corridors simultaneously for consideration at SCOURN's spring meeting that year -- adding an Interstate designation to existing (1991/ISTEA) high-priority corridor #13 between Raleigh and Hampton Roads, and writing and designating an entirely new HPC along US 70 from I-40 to Morehead City as a Panamax-related enhancement of port access there. Both were originally considered E-W corridors; HPC #13, traversing 2 states, was limited as to numbers due to conflict with US routes in either/both states; of the available pool between 40 and 64, not counting the existing I-44, the numbers 48, 50, 52, 58, and 60 conflicted with numbers in VA and partially NC. That left 42, 46, 54, 56, and 62 available. However, someone connected to NCDOT (likely a state legislator or an aide) complained that since NCDOT has a non-duplication rule, that would require renumbering of any state route whose number was chosen for either corridor -- and many rural addresses on state highways reference the route number for postal addresses and would have to be changed if the state highway number was changed. Since all the available even numbers (with the exception of 46, a MSR with only a few miles in NC before crossing into VA) were current NC state routes of significant length, some actually intersecting the corridors at issue, NCDOT took it upon themselves to cobble up alternate numbers. The in-state corridor along US 70 was originally submitted as
I-50 in a gesture of grandeur for a 120-mile corridor before it was realized that there was a long NC 50; they quickly resubmitted it as I-36 (no NC route bearing that number) even though it was technically "out of grid", rationalizing that the I-40 portion it departed from was largely N-S between Wilmington and Raleigh. HPC #13 continued to be problematic, so NCDOT decided to go for a N-S number -- again with a spurious rationalization that if I-85 could be considered N-S even though largely E-W in the state, that rationale could be applied to the new corridor as well. Apparently VA's attitude toward their 18 or so miles was
"whatever". So they submitted a 2nd I-89 as the selection, as they elected to ignore their non-duplication rule since NC 89 was well away in the western portion of the state. AASHTO's SCOURN took these applications to their meeting in a snowy Des Moines in April 2016; they summarily decided to reject the I-36 designation for US 70 out of hand due to its out-of-grid status -- but they also summarily rejected the state's argument regarding state route duplication, considering that Interstate designations take precedent regardless of in-state circumstances. But for some odd reason (I've long suspected a combination of tired delegates and an open bar in the meetingplace hotel) they accepted the N-S rationale, although that would have dictated a route duplication of some sort (all odd numbers above 67 being taken) -- but they substituted
I-87 for I-89 with the reason given that the N-S portion in far NE NC and VA was closer longitudinally to the original NY I-87 than I-89. I also suspect that number was selected to "tweak" NCDOT's nose a bit as a slightly punitive measure (NC 87 is a prominent mid-state artery) for wasting their time with the non-state-duplicative assertion. And at the last minute they also "subbed in" I-42 for the rejected I-36 -- again, likely a bit of a "tweak", as NC 42 actually
crosses the I-42/US 70 corridor.
IMO, the obvious and rational move regarding HPC #13 would have been to reject
all of NCDOT's rationalizations, look at a regional map showing the states' route networks, and designate I-46 over that corridor, since VA seemed to have little or no interest in the designation choice (and most of the MSR 46 mileage was in that state). Maybe I simply expect too much in the way of thoughtful analysis on the part of those tasked with making decisions that affect the driving public, but SCOURN certainly seemed to drop the ball in this case. At least in a historical sense they didn't make the
worst decision of 2016!
"North Carolina has a inordinate number of limited access roads spurring out from Raleigh in all directions"
Let's see.
started with none in the 1950s.
Then the US1 Bypass (The Beltline from Cary to Capital Blvd0 was built on the NW side of Raleigh which didn't extend much beyond Cameron Village at the time.
In the 1980s I-40 was extended and it ended on what we called Wade Ave at the Beltline. In the late 80's it was built on Raleigh's Southside and finally connected with the US1 Bypass to form a piece-meal loop like it still is today.
I-40 finally finished to Wilmington but I-40 was never about Raleigh or its commuters, but rather for Wilmington and to finish the almost transcontinental distance.
US64 was the only road for all points East from Raleigh and in the 80s was a traffic nightmare, backed up for sometimes to almost I-95 because the business-lined road in Raleigh was all there was.
US264 was a much needed improvement that came in the 90s.
US1 through Cary was improved to please the Yankees who began arriving in the 80s.
The Clayton Bypass and toll 540 were for the new residents to Southern Wake and Johnston.
I agree it could appear on the surface that now there is a lot of focus on limited-access roads around Raleigh.
But after rejecting i-95 coming through Raleigh it remained and still remains away from a truly major interstate corridor, possibly preventing more seedy neighborhods from forming and bad stuff flowing in nd out since the interstate system was built.
There were no big vital limited access highways near Raleigh. US1 wasn't 4-lanes to Henderson until the 80s also.
Y'all's suggestions for i-87 sound like you want to build an uneeded interstste for the sake of numbering it.
Rockingham and the area next to the SC border is dead, as it's not part of the central NC hum of activity.
If anything, 49/64 to Charlotte is the important corridor to spend on. it's so much shorter and quicker than I-85's arc through the urban crescent.
I-87 being posted along a meandering route through Eastern NC ain't gonna help anyone travel faster from Raleigh to Norfolk nor will it spur economic activity. Total waste of effort.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 01, 2020, 10:43:53 AM
One obvious local issue that drive corridor development in North Carolina is connectivity to the State Legislative Complex in Raleigh (many other states spend highway dollars for this purpose, it just seems like North Carolina has a inordinate number of limited access roads spurring out from Raleigh in all directions).
Quote from: architect77 on October 03, 2020, 08:46:58 PM
In the 1980s I-40 was extended and it ended on what we called Wade Ave at the Beltline. In the late 80's it was built on Raleigh's Southside and finally connected with the US1 Bypass to form a piece-meal loop like it still is today.
I-40 finally finished to Wilmington but I-40 was never about Raleigh or its commuters, but rather for Wilmington and to finish the almost transcontinental distance.
I wasn't considering Interstate routes, but since I-40 to Wilmington wasn't part of the original system I probably should have included it. Westward, I was thinking about the Durham Freeway.
Quote from: architect77 on October 03, 2020, 08:46:58 PM
I agree it could appear on the surface that now there is a lot of focus on limited-access roads around Raleigh.
Wasn't try to bash Raleigh. Most states have had a goal of connecting as many distant towns/cities to their state capitals. From this perspective, I was also including US-421 from I-40 to North Wilkesboro as spiraling out of Raleigh (similar to way I-985 spirals out of Atlanta to Gainesville).
Quote from: architect77 on October 03, 2020, 08:46:58 PM
I-87 being posted along a meandering route through Eastern NC ain't gonna help anyone travel faster from Raleigh to Norfolk nor will it spur economic activity. Total waste of effort.
I've had Raleigh-Norfolk on my list of missing links since the 1980's. But it is indicative of a bigger problem, that there is no governmental incentive to build out traffic corridors unless it meets Interstate standards. The network of Appalachian Development Highway System is an exception, where a separate agency pushes the funding towards a less expensive type of highway. Seems to me that we need one or two new highway banners: one to designate partially limited access highways (step down from the Interstate system); and perhaps another to designate an improved highway (step up from the U.S. Highway system).
All that being said, I would certainly agree that the traffic between Raleigh and Suffolk could be adequately served by a higher-speed route that is not up to Interstate standards. Right now, I use three different routes: Southern Tidewater using US-158//NC-35/VA-35//US-58; Western Tidewater using I-95//VA-40//US-460; and the Virginia Peninsula using I-85//I-295//I-64. A shorter route would eliminate these alternatives in most situations.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 04, 2020, 12:17:13 AM
I've had Raleigh-Norfolk on my list of missing links since the 1980's. But it is indicative of a bigger problem, that there is no governmental incentive to build out traffic corridors unless it meets Interstate standards.
An interstate highway between Norfolk and Raleigh would satisfy a major missing link between the Hampton Roads metro and I-95 South, and thereby all of the major population centers from North Carolina south to Florida, which still isn't served by a freeway corridor. HPC #13 was planned in the 1990s and the vast majority of the 180 mile corridor is already built out to freeway standards, about 130 miles exactly, with only about 50 miles of arterial segment remaining. Of the 50 left, around 14 miles is mostly limited access with minor at-grade intersections, that including the segment from Virginia state line to Elizabeth City bypass, and the segment through the Roanoke River wetlands.
Since 1990, around 60 miles of freeway have been constructed on the corridor, 30 on US-64 between Tarboro and Williamston, and 30 on US-17 along 3 bypasses. US-64 west of Tarboro was already full freeway since the late 1970s, with the exception of the Knightdale Bypass constructed around 2006. There is certainly merit to upgrade / complete the remaining 50 miles of the corridor, and to provide an unobstructed, 70 mph highway between Raleigh, I-95, and Hampton Roads.
US-17 was largely two lanes between Norfolk and Williamston until the early 2000s. US-17 between the Virginia state line and Elizabeth city was widened / relocated in the 1980s, Elizabeth City to Windsor widened in the 1990s and early 2000s (improving the existing Edenton Bypass to freeway standards), bypasses of Elizabeth City and Windsor constructed in 1999 and 2008 respectively, relocation of US-17 in southern Chesapeake in 2005, and finally the Dominion Blvd widening / freeway project in 2017. IIRC, the segment between Windsor and Williamston was widened before the 1980s.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 04, 2020, 12:17:13 AM
I've had Raleigh-Norfolk on my list of missing links since the 1980's. But it is indicative of a bigger problem, that there is no governmental incentive to build out traffic corridors unless it meets Interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2020, 12:55:30 AM
An interstate highway between Norfolk and Raleigh would satisfy a major missing link between the Hampton Roads metro and I-95 South, and thereby all of the major population centers from North Carolina south to Florida, which still isn't served by a freeway corridor. HPC #13 was planned in the 1990s and the vast majority of the 180 mile corridor is already built out to freeway standards, about 130 miles exactly, with only about 50 miles of arterial segment remaining. Of the 50 left, around 14 miles is mostly limited access with minor at-grade intersections, that including the segment from Virginia state line to Elizabeth City bypass, and the segment through the Roanoke River wetlands.
But given the current economy, does this corridor warrant a highway built to Interstate standards (as opposed to a Partially Limited Access highway not unlike US-421 west of Wilkesboro)?
^
The remaining non-freeway segments are already 4 lane divided, partial access control, with the exception of Edenton to Windsor which is 5 lanes. That partial access concept has already been built out along US-17 in the past 20 years, now the goal is to complete those partial control access segments to full freeway standards.
The goal is to upgrade segments gradually phases over the next two decades as funding permits, it's not an all-at-once project.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2020, 03:32:29 PM
^
The remaining non-freeway segments are already 4 lane divided, partial access control, with the exception of Edenton to Windsor which is 5 lanes. That partial access concept has already been built out along US-17 in the past 20 years, now the goal is to complete those partial control access segments to full freeway standards.
The goal is to upgrade segments gradually phases over the next two decades as funding permits, it's not an all-at-once project.
Yes, NC's default new road is a 4 lane, divided highway with at grade signalized intersections. The long term goal is for the entire stgate population to have one nearby to use, as it is considered very safe in design.
Actually the default might be a 4 lane divided highway with some sort of Superstreet intersections that eliminate some of the turn phases for less waiting. The Rolesville Bypass might be a good example.
The Superstreet approach invented by NCDOT is catching on. I read about a town in Northern Virginia that hired NCDOT to design some intersections up there.
Components not quite to interstate standards include shoulders a couple of feet wide instead of 10'-12' emergency pull off space.
Face it, the region between Raleigh and Norfolk in North Carolina is dying and there isn't much hope of it rebounding in our lives. Farmville, Williamston, even charming Edenton, are too far from growing metro areas to be economically connected.
An interstate to Norfolk should be a direct shot to have the benefit of a fast travel time if spending so much & all the effort.
My hometown of Louisburg will be connected to Raleigh with 4 lane, divided US401 being built right now, and NC561 begins/ends in Louisburg heads straight towards Norfolk passing through the towns of Rich Square and Ahoskie, whose names I've had to look at on a sign all my life but haven't ever been to.
Quote from: architect77 on October 04, 2020, 09:17:42 PM
An interstate to Norfolk should be a direct shot to have the benefit of a fast travel time if spending so much & all the effort.
My hometown of Louisburg will be connected to Raleigh with 4 lane, divided US401 being built right now, and NC561 begins/ends in Louisburg heads straight towards Norfolk passing through the towns of Rich Square and Ahoskie, whose names I've had to look at on a sign all my life but haven't ever been to.
The problem is cost at that rate. NCDOT could build a more direct corridor on other routes, but would require significant more work. US-64 / US-17 is already around 70% built to freeway standards, with the remaining 4 lanes divided. Only around 20 - 25 miles of new location construction will be required, with around 25 - 30 miles of upgrading existing four lane divided highways, much already with partial to limited access control. Other routes could involve 30 - 50+ miles of new location highway, as it would be largely impractical to upgrade a 2 lane road (unless it's something such as NC-11) vs. a 4 lane divided highway. Not to mention, very little in the way of population centers would be served.
The current routing is a trade off. It's not the most direct, but involves the least amount of new construction and serves a number of population centers in Eastern NC.
The most ideal routing would be US-58 between I-95 and Suffolk as far as time / distance goes, however there seems to be little interest within VDOT to enhance that corridor any further other than spot improvements closer to Suffolk. VDOT recently completed a US-58 Arterial Management Study which looks at spot improvements (as they've done / doing with a number of corridors) and included an interstate upgrade analysis, indicating it would cost at least $2 billion and up to over $3 billion to upgrade their segment to I-95, and that's not including Suffolk to Bowers Hill. With much higher priorities in the state and region, including I-64 widening, along with the prospect that NC is already planning a southern corridor - I-87 - there is likely going to be a desire on the northern side of the border to let North Carolina do most of the heavy lifting. VDOT would only need to upgrade around 12 miles of US-17 between VA-165 and the North Carolina line, which is already on limited-access right of way with at-grade intersections at minor rural intersections, with two signals at the northern portion of the project near Grassfield which would be the most involved construction.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2020, 11:08:15 PM
Quote from: architect77 on October 04, 2020, 09:17:42 PM
An interstate to Norfolk should be a direct shot to have the benefit of a fast travel time if spending so much & all the effort.
My hometown of Louisburg will be connected to Raleigh with 4 lane, divided US401 being built right now, and NC561 begins/ends in Louisburg heads straight towards Norfolk passing through the towns of Rich Square and Ahoskie, whose names I've had to look at on a sign all my life but haven't ever been to.
The problem is cost at that rate. NCDOT could build a more direct corridor on other routes, but would require significant more work. US-64 / US-17 is already around 70% built to freeway standards, with the remaining 4 lanes divided. Only around 20 - 25 miles of new location construction will be required, with around 25 - 30 miles of upgrading existing four lane divided highways, much already with partial to limited access control. Other routes could involve 30 - 50+ miles of new location highway, as it would be largely impractical to upgrade a 2 lane road (unless it's something such as NC-11) vs. a 4 lane divided highway. Not to mention, very little in the way of population centers would be served.
The current routing is a trade off. It's not the most direct, but involves the least amount of new construction and serves a number of population centers in Eastern NC.
The most ideal routing would be US-58 between I-95 and Suffolk as far as time / distance goes, however there seems to be little interest within VDOT to enhance that corridor any further other than spot improvements closer to Suffolk. VDOT recently completed a US-58 Arterial Management Study which looks at spot improvements (as they've done / doing with a number of corridors) and included an interstate upgrade analysis, indicating it would cost at least $2 billion and up to over $3 billion to upgrade their segment to I-95, and that's not including Suffolk to Bowers Hill. With much higher priorities in the state and region, including I-64 widening, along with the prospect that NC is already planning a southern corridor - I-87 - there is likely going to be a desire on the northern side of the border to let North Carolina do most of the heavy lifting. VDOT would only need to upgrade around 12 miles of US-17 between VA-165 and the North Carolina line, which is already on limited-access right of way with at-grade intersections at minor rural intersections, with two signals at the northern portion of the project near Grassfield which would be the most involved construction.
That's fair, lets hope the higher speed rail service is a priority since they now own all the land under the abandoned S line which is the only missing link between Petersburg and the NC state line.
They two states must find $4 billion to rebuild that 100 miles of track, and then train travel will be better than flying or driving to D.C. and NYC.
Quote from: architect77 on October 05, 2020, 06:12:56 PM
They two states must find $4 billion to rebuild that 100 miles of track, and then train travel will be better than flying or driving to D.C. and NYC.
I'm sure that things are better for airline travel now (if you can't tolerate the risk), but rail has certainly been favorable to flying for the past 18 years. The hardest thing is that most of the northbound Amtrak options were at night (which got complicated when trains run late on the A-Line). Full-disclosure: I'm a railroader who has worked on Amtrak high-speed projects and spent much of my career working on trains (and things) in airports. I would have preferred flying, but the trips north got too chaotic. It was easier to drive to BWI and take a Metroliner.
Looks like there won't be any new I-87 shields beyond the Knightdale Bypass anytime soon...
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article246281865.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article246281865.html)
Quote▪ The widening of U.S. 64/264 to six lanes between Wendell Boulevard and the split at Zebulon has been pushed back to sometime beyond 2029.
Quote from: LM117 on October 09, 2020, 09:38:33 AM
Looks like there won't be any new I-87 shields beyond the Knightdale Bypass anytime soon...
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article246281865.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article246281865.html)
Quote▪ The widening of U.S. 64/264 to six lanes between Wendell Boulevard and the split at Zebulon has been pushed back to sometime beyond 2029.
The problem is more with traffic congestion than anything else. That remaining 4 lane segment between the US-264 split and Knightdale Bypass is a mess carrying over 60,000 AADT.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 09, 2020, 11:14:26 AM
Quote from: LM117 on October 09, 2020, 09:38:33 AM
Looks like there won't be any new I-87 shields beyond the Knightdale Bypass anytime soon...
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article246281865.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article246281865.html)
Quote▪ The widening of U.S. 64/264 to six lanes between Wendell Boulevard and the split at Zebulon has been pushed back to sometime beyond 2029.
The problem is more with traffic congestion than anything else. That remaining 4 lane segment between the US-264 split and Knightdale Bypass is a mess carrying over 60,000 AADT.
Agreed. I've been through there before and it was packed. Seeing this project pushed back is a buzzkill.
At the rate they're going, it will take decades for Interstate 87 to fully connect Raleigh with Norfolk. A pity. I wonder if any of us will even be alive when Interstate 87 finally reaches the North Carolina/Virginia state line.
^
US-17 may be upgraded into a freeway between the Elizabeth City Bypass and state line by 2030, but will likely not tie in on either end for years after. Virginia's course is unknown, but they may advance their portion once that 13 mile segment is complete, completing a Norfolk to Elizabeth City freeway.
Speaking of the Virginia portion, cost estimates for candidate projects in the upcoming 2045 Hampton Roads LRTP are set to be released next month, which with I-87 being one of those projects, we would see for the first time an official price estimate from north of the border.
The Hertford Bypass may also have a couple interchanges constructed by 2030, with a Edenton to Hertford freeway upgrade forthcoming (it's currently funded in the STIP for planning & environmental study).
The other big pieces that will likely be built into the 2030s would be Williamston to Windsor, Windsor to Edenton, and Hertford to Elizabeth City.
It will be a slow process, but I imagine the whole thing will be substantially complete before or by 2040. They've made significant progress since the 1990s, with nearly 20 miles of freeway on US-17 and 30 miles on US-64, and that progress will continue. If that INFRA grant for the I-87 corridor is ever approved (failed 2 years in a row), 6 lane widening to US-264 split and Hertford interchanges would be funded, plus upgrading a good portion of the US-64 freeway to interstate standards. I personally think efforts should be first on getting US-17 up to at least a full freeway, then coming back and completing final touches (shoulder widening, bridge replacements, etc) to solidify its interstate status would be the best course, but that's not the plan.
what is the advantage of NC's habit of slow construction on any given project? I mean they will take a 1-2 year build and stretch it to 5 years of looking at orange barrels and lots of downtime.
The only reason I can think of it that one construction company is working on multiple projects with the same crew alternating which projects are manned and active. I know that's somewhat unlikely but weather is not an excuse for the slow pace. Definitely no incentive offered to finish US401 to Louisburg within a reasonable amount of time.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 19, 2016, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
QuoteROCKY MOUNT, N.C. – After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.
The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.
Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.
DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.
Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.
It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.
This CSX terminal facility has been talked about for several years, principally in the RR industry press (including the publicly available
Trains magazine). It was apparently cancelled about 5 years ago due to a downturn in traffic and the adoption of "scheduled railroading" by CSX among others, a practice which tends to foreshadow a consolidation of origin/destination points rather than the deployment of additional ones. But it seems the political value of building and operating the facility outweighed internal doubts, so it's finally being done. FWIH from several quarters is that "Panamax" is indeed increasing the inbound volume from several East Coast and Gulf ports; this likely also figured into CSX's decision to resume development of the Rocky Mount yard/marshalling location.
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2020, 08:20:38 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 19, 2016, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
QuoteROCKY MOUNT, N.C. – After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.
The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.
Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.
DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.
Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.
It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.
This CSX terminal facility has been talked about for several years, principally in the RR industry press (including the publicly available Trains magazine). It was apparently cancelled about 5 years ago due to a downturn in traffic and the adoption of "scheduled railroading" by CSX among others, a practice which tends to foreshadow a consolidation of origin/destination points rather than the deployment of additional ones. But it seems the political value of building and operating the facility outweighed internal doubts, so it's finally being done. FWIH from several quarters is that "Panamax" is indeed increasing the inbound volume from several East Coast and Gulf ports; this likely also figured into CSX's decision to resume development of the Rocky Mount yard/marshalling location.
It's not being built as large as originally planned, though. The state managed to convince CSX not to pull out altogether, so CSX finally agreed to build a scaled-down version of the terminal. This agreement happened after the then-CSX CEO Hunter Harrison died. IIRC, it was his idea to kill the project.
Here's an image of the construction taken back in July:
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/._Qlf9RWkG3Qg.2eAn8KJQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtoPTY2Ng--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/Benzinga/0cc9ade1295219d7752cb628f5f49d9f)
Call me a selfish Virginian, but I really wish that the Commonwealth would push for an Interstate corridor between Martinsville and Virginia Beach along U.S. 58 (including present-day I-264). It would further revitalize the struggling cities across Southside, and it would better connect Hampton Roads with not only Raleigh/Research Triangle, but the Triad, Charlotte, Atlanta, and other populated areas within the interior Southeast.
The US 58 corridor does not need an Interstate designation, but it is possible that more segments might be upgraded to freeway standards.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 12, 2020, 05:29:35 PM
The US 58 corridor does not need an Interstate designation, but it is possible that more segments might be upgraded to freeway standards.
A lot could be done, for example at Emporia, South Hill, and South Boston.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 12, 2020, 05:29:35 PM
The US 58 corridor does not need an Interstate designation, but it is possible that more segments might be upgraded to freeway standards.
By this logic, the US 64 and US 17 corridors don't need an Interstate designation either.
As for 58, one could argue that an Interstate is warranted east of South Hill. Even better argument for east of Emporia.
Local official discuss broadband, I-87 with Congressman Murphy (https://www.dailyadvance.com/local-official-discuss-broadband-i-87-with-congressman-murphy/article_37ed83b9-01f1-51a5-be50-e0b7d83f3766.html)
Relevant excerpt:
QuoteKersey also asked about the status of Interstate 87, which was discussed at a previous meeting with Murphy.
The road will go from Hampton Roads to Raleigh, and could bring about a tremendous amount of economic development for rural areas along the route, including Chowan County, Kersey said.
She noted that discussions with North Carolina Department of Transportation originally put the I-87 in a 10 year schedule, but now it's more like 20 years.
"So we were just wondering at the federal level what might be possible," Kersey said.
Murphy said that with a new administration — whether its President Donald Trump or another president — coming in, the plan will have to start from scratch in some way.
"But the good point is that I've had time to form some alliances and some friendships and some relationships with other individuals who from this area," he said. "With Representative Butterfield and several of my colleagues from Virginia, I will try to work in a Tidewater area to try to get them to work on a regional road. So I don't promise anything quick but I promise that that's definitely on the radar."
Also chiming in on infrastruction, Vaughan noted that he attended a transportation infrastructure meeting earlier in the day and discussed the connectivity of the region — through roads, waterways and railways. Murphy's office could be as asset in the process of connecting the region, Vaughan said.
In terms of economy, Knighton asked about the county's opportunity zone. The zone, which is pretty much everything north of U.S. 17, offers tax incentives to businesses moving into the area. The tract does not include most of Edenton or the southern part of the county.
"Getting into that opportunity zone would really be game changers for our community," she said. "We always been told that it can't be changed until the next census and know that but I don't know how long after the next census it will take."
Knighton asked if Murphy can help change the opportunity zone. He said that if elected, he would be happy to explore that. It would be easier to change the zone if other counties through the country experienced the same problem.
Funding shortfalls put I-87 projects on hold (https://www.dailyadvance.com/news/local/funding-shortfalls-put-i-87-projects-on-hold/article_a5e0a74a-3a59-5baa-a61d-d734de90b585.html)
QuoteFinancial shortfalls have forced the N.C. Department of Transportation to delay construction on many parts of the proposed 213-mile Interstate 87 project from Raleigh to Virginia, a move that will push back the $1 billion project by several years.
Marc Finlayson of the Highway 17/64 Association told participants on a virtual "1-87 Work Session" sponsored by the North Carolina East Alliance this week that a number of factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have hurt NCDOT's bottom line.
"Most of the work we expect to be done has been pushed off at least several years and in some cases to the back end of the 10-year STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program)," Finlayson said, referring to DOT's road-planning document for 2020-29.
NCDOT's financial challenges started with Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and Hurricane Florence in 2018 as the agency had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to repair damage from the storms.
"That was well beyond the money they had set aside to manage that," Finlayson said.
COVID further hurt NCDOT as people stopped driving during the pandemic and that led to a dramatic decrease in gas tax revenues.
"It's been really an unfortunate series of events that has caused DOT to have some financial difficulties," Finlayson said. "The good news is that as things improve, I am confident that DOT will move projects back to the left of the time line to the fullest extent that they can."
One I-87 project scheduled to begin last year in Pasquotank County – paving rehabilitation work from the Perquimans County line to the north end of U.S. Highway 17 – is one of many along the proposed route affected by NCDOT's financial woes.
NCDOT Division 1 Planning Engineer Craig Midgett said the $15 million Pasquotank project was let in 2019 and work was originally slated to begin in 2020. But he told work session participants that the project now "has been placed on hold."
A pavement rehab project in Camden County from the Pasquotank County line to the Virginia state line is scheduled to start in 2025 at an estimated cost of $6.1 million.
"We are hoping for that schedule to hold," Midgett said.
State Sen. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan, told participants that funding priorities should be given to sections of future I-87 closer to the Virginia border.
Steinburg, whose district includes multiple counties through which the highway is scheduled to cross, noted that legislation he sponsored places northeastern North Carolina in Virginia's Foreign-Trade Zone and that land for economic development close to the Port of Virginia is becoming scarce and expensive.
"It seems that this would be prime for expansion first," Steinburg said of sections close to Virginia. "All of that land that is in North Carolina that is just across that invisible border is available for companies. If you want (economic) growth real quick, that would be the way to go about it."
Two projects in Chowan and Perquimans counties slated to be part of I-87 are "tentatively" scheduled to begin in 2025, Midgett said.
The Chowan project is $6.4 million in pavement rehabilitation from the Bertie County line to the Perquimans County line. The Perquimans project is $5 million in pavement rehabilitation from East Bear Swamp Road to U.S. Highway 17 Business.
"I say tentatively because things being what they are, things are a little fluid," Midgett said. "But we anticipate them to begin in 2025."
Four interstate maintenance projects in Nash and Edgecombe counties are scheduled to be let in 2025. The interstate maintenance projects include pavement rehab, shoulder widening, guardrail upgrades and bridge preservation, said NCDOT Division 4 Planning Engineer Kristen Barnes.
The work session had almost 150 participants from across northeastern North Carolina. N.C. East Alliance interim President and CEO Vann Rogerson urged leaders attending the meeting to work toward getting federal dollars for I-87.
During the presidential campaign, President-elect Joe Biden voiced strong support for modernizing highways and roads, investing in light rail networks and updating ports. Those proposals may be easier to achieve as Democrats will take control of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives in the coming days.
If such a package is approved, Rogerson said northeastern North Carolina needs to "put its hat in and ask for some of it."
"Let's make sure that we don't miss this infrastructure funding that is supposed to be an economic development stimulus from the federal government," Rogerson said. "One thing is for sure, if we don't ask for some money, we won't get any money."
Not surprised. This likely means bad news for I-42 and I-795 as well.
I guess that means that Interstate 87 in North Carolina will remain at 12.9 miles indefinitely. Thus, the southern Interstate 87 will remain the shortest mainline Interstate Highway in the country, since Interstate 97 in Maryland is 4.72 miles longer.
this is why NCDOT should've waited to sign it all at once. The only thing the public has really gotten out of this is a large jump in exit numbers on US 64. It jumps from Exit 14 to Exit 432.
Given that the funding shortfalls started before the pandemic, it looks like NC has bitten off more than they can chew with all these interstates. They should be banned from requesting more until the finish the ones they have. And the new MUTCD won't allow them to have their interstate without doing the work any more, as the "Future XX" shields they use in place of "Interstate XX" will not be in the 2020 MUTCD (probably because of NC abusing them!).
Quote from: fillup420 on January 18, 2021, 08:40:45 PM
this is why NCDOT should've waited to sign it all at once. The only thing the public has really gotten out of this is a large jump in exit numbers on US 64. It jumps from Exit 14 to Exit 432.
Agreed. Interstates should not be signed unless a section would make sense to be signed with that number even if no further extensions ever happen. As we've seen, plans can fall though, and you can end up with short, disconnected sections of interstate all over the place for a long time (if not forever).
Quote from: vdeane on January 18, 2021, 09:48:09 PM
Given that the funding shortfalls started before the pandemic, it looks like NC has bitten off more than they can chew with all these interstates. They should be banned from requesting more until the finish the ones they have. And the new MUTCD won't allow them to have their interstate without doing the work any more, as the "Future XX" shields they use in place of "Interstate XX" will not be in the 2020 MUTCD (probably because of NC abusing them!).
If that does make it in the next MUTCD, it doesn't mean Congress won't override it. I could see some push back from NC and other states on that proposal.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2021, 05:48:22 AM
Funding shortfalls put I-87 projects on hold (https://www.dailyadvance.com/news/local/funding-shortfalls-put-i-87-projects-on-hold/article_a5e0a74a-3a59-5baa-a61d-d734de90b585.html)
QuoteFinancial shortfalls have forced the N.C. Department of Transportation to delay construction on many parts of the proposed 213-mile Interstate 87 project from Raleigh to Virginia, a move that will push back the $1 billion project by several years.
Marc Finlayson of the Highway 17/64 Association told participants on a virtual "1-87 Work Session" sponsored by the North Carolina East Alliance this week that a number of factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have hurt NCDOT's bottom line.
"Most of the work we expect to be done has been pushed off at least several years and in some cases to the back end of the 10-year STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program)," Finlayson said, referring to DOT's road-planning document for 2020-29.
NCDOT's financial challenges started with Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and Hurricane Florence in 2018 as the agency had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to repair damage from the storms.
"That was well beyond the money they had set aside to manage that," Finlayson said.
COVID further hurt NCDOT as people stopped driving during the pandemic and that led to a dramatic decrease in gas tax revenues.
"It's been really an unfortunate series of events that has caused DOT to have some financial difficulties," Finlayson said. "The good news is that as things improve, I am confident that DOT will move projects back to the left of the time line to the fullest extent that they can."
One I-87 project scheduled to begin last year in Pasquotank County – paving rehabilitation work from the Perquimans County line to the north end of U.S. Highway 17 – is one of many along the proposed route affected by NCDOT's financial woes.
NCDOT Division 1 Planning Engineer Craig Midgett said the $15 million Pasquotank project was let in 2019 and work was originally slated to begin in 2020. But he told work session participants that the project now "has been placed on hold."
A pavement rehab project in Camden County from the Pasquotank County line to the Virginia state line is scheduled to start in 2025 at an estimated cost of $6.1 million.
"We are hoping for that schedule to hold," Midgett said.
State Sen. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan, told participants that funding priorities should be given to sections of future I-87 closer to the Virginia border.
Steinburg, whose district includes multiple counties through which the highway is scheduled to cross, noted that legislation he sponsored places northeastern North Carolina in Virginia's Foreign-Trade Zone and that land for economic development close to the Port of Virginia is becoming scarce and expensive.
"It seems that this would be prime for expansion first," Steinburg said of sections close to Virginia. "All of that land that is in North Carolina that is just across that invisible border is available for companies. If you want (economic) growth real quick, that would be the way to go about it."
Two projects in Chowan and Perquimans counties slated to be part of I-87 are "tentatively" scheduled to begin in 2025, Midgett said.
The Chowan project is $6.4 million in pavement rehabilitation from the Bertie County line to the Perquimans County line. The Perquimans project is $5 million in pavement rehabilitation from East Bear Swamp Road to U.S. Highway 17 Business.
"I say tentatively because things being what they are, things are a little fluid," Midgett said. "But we anticipate them to begin in 2025."
Four interstate maintenance projects in Nash and Edgecombe counties are scheduled to be let in 2025. The interstate maintenance projects include pavement rehab, shoulder widening, guardrail upgrades and bridge preservation, said NCDOT Division 4 Planning Engineer Kristen Barnes.
The work session had almost 150 participants from across northeastern North Carolina. N.C. East Alliance interim President and CEO Vann Rogerson urged leaders attending the meeting to work toward getting federal dollars for I-87.
During the presidential campaign, President-elect Joe Biden voiced strong support for modernizing highways and roads, investing in light rail networks and updating ports. Those proposals may be easier to achieve as Democrats will take control of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives in the coming days.
If such a package is approved, Rogerson said northeastern North Carolina needs to "put its hat in and ask for some of it."
"Let's make sure that we don't miss this infrastructure funding that is supposed to be an economic development stimulus from the federal government," Rogerson said. "One thing is for sure, if we don't ask for some money, we won't get any money."
Good. There are interstates that are still waiting to be completed (especially I-26 connector that keeps getting delayed) I-87 isn't important and shouldn't even be priority. It could easily wait as their 4-lane of US 64 and US 17 is fine for time being.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2021, 05:48:22 AM
Funding shortfalls put I-87 projects on hold (https://www.dailyadvance.com/news/local/funding-shortfalls-put-i-87-projects-on-hold/article_a5e0a74a-3a59-5baa-a61d-d734de90b585.html)
QuoteFinancial shortfalls have forced the N.C. Department of Transportation to delay construction on many parts of the proposed 213-mile Interstate 87 project from Raleigh to Virginia, a move that will push back the $1 billion project by several years.
Marc Finlayson of the Highway 17/64 Association told participants on a virtual "1-87 Work Session" sponsored by the North Carolina East Alliance this week that a number of factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have hurt NCDOT's bottom line.
"Most of the work we expect to be done has been pushed off at least several years and in some cases to the back end of the 10-year STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program)," Finlayson said, referring to DOT's road-planning document for 2020-29.
NCDOT's financial challenges started with Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and Hurricane Florence in 2018 as the agency had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to repair damage from the storms.
"That was well beyond the money they had set aside to manage that," Finlayson said.
COVID further hurt NCDOT as people stopped driving during the pandemic and that led to a dramatic decrease in gas tax revenues.
"It's been really an unfortunate series of events that has caused DOT to have some financial difficulties," Finlayson said. "The good news is that as things improve, I am confident that DOT will move projects back to the left of the time line to the fullest extent that they can."
One I-87 project scheduled to begin last year in Pasquotank County – paving rehabilitation work from the Perquimans County line to the north end of U.S. Highway 17 – is one of many along the proposed route affected by NCDOT's financial woes.
NCDOT Division 1 Planning Engineer Craig Midgett said the $15 million Pasquotank project was let in 2019 and work was originally slated to begin in 2020. But he told work session participants that the project now "has been placed on hold."
A pavement rehab project in Camden County from the Pasquotank County line to the Virginia state line is scheduled to start in 2025 at an estimated cost of $6.1 million.
"We are hoping for that schedule to hold," Midgett said.
State Sen. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan, told participants that funding priorities should be given to sections of future I-87 closer to the Virginia border.
Steinburg, whose district includes multiple counties through which the highway is scheduled to cross, noted that legislation he sponsored places northeastern North Carolina in Virginia's Foreign-Trade Zone and that land for economic development close to the Port of Virginia is becoming scarce and expensive.
"It seems that this would be prime for expansion first," Steinburg said of sections close to Virginia. "All of that land that is in North Carolina that is just across that invisible border is available for companies. If you want (economic) growth real quick, that would be the way to go about it."
Two projects in Chowan and Perquimans counties slated to be part of I-87 are "tentatively" scheduled to begin in 2025, Midgett said.
The Chowan project is $6.4 million in pavement rehabilitation from the Bertie County line to the Perquimans County line. The Perquimans project is $5 million in pavement rehabilitation from East Bear Swamp Road to U.S. Highway 17 Business.
"I say tentatively because things being what they are, things are a little fluid," Midgett said. "But we anticipate them to begin in 2025."
Four interstate maintenance projects in Nash and Edgecombe counties are scheduled to be let in 2025. The interstate maintenance projects include pavement rehab, shoulder widening, guardrail upgrades and bridge preservation, said NCDOT Division 4 Planning Engineer Kristen Barnes.
The work session had almost 150 participants from across northeastern North Carolina. N.C. East Alliance interim President and CEO Vann Rogerson urged leaders attending the meeting to work toward getting federal dollars for I-87.
During the presidential campaign, President-elect Joe Biden voiced strong support for modernizing highways and roads, investing in light rail networks and updating ports. Those proposals may be easier to achieve as Democrats will take control of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives in the coming days.
If such a package is approved, Rogerson said northeastern North Carolina needs to "put its hat in and ask for some of it."
"Let's make sure that we don't miss this infrastructure funding that is supposed to be an economic development stimulus from the federal government," Rogerson said. "One thing is for sure, if we don't ask for some money, we won't get any money."
Oh jeez, they (NCDOT) might as well forget about the extension going into VA. There hasn't been any work on that since its inception in 2017. :popcorn:
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2021, 06:26:14 PM
I guess that means that Interstate 87 in North Carolina will remain at 12.9 miles indefinitely. Thus, the southern Interstate 87 will remain the shortest mainline Interstate Highway in the country, since Interstate 97 in Maryland is 4.72 miles longer.
Agree with what you said. NCDOT should give this project up and start repairing bridges that are in desperate need of replacement.
Quote from: vdeane on January 18, 2021, 09:48:09 PM
Given that the funding shortfalls started before the pandemic, it looks like NC has bitten off more than they can chew with all these interstates. They should be banned from requesting more until the finish the ones they have. And the new MUTCD won't allow them to have their interstate without doing the work any more, as the "Future XX" shields they use in place of "Interstate XX" will not be in the 2020 MUTCD (probably because of NC abusing them!).
Quote from: fillup420 on January 18, 2021, 08:40:45 PM
this is why NCDOT should've waited to sign it all at once. The only thing the public has really gotten out of this is a large jump in exit numbers on US 64. It jumps from Exit 14 to Exit 432.
Agreed. Interstates should not be signed unless a section would make sense to be signed with that number even if no further extensions ever happen. As we've seen, plans can fall though, and you can end up with short, disconnected sections of interstate all over the place for a long time (if not forever).
That is what I said earlier. Give up making new interstates, and just work on the existing ones. Example: NC540 has been VERY slow to a crawl in regards to construction. Going down US 401, and all I see is dirt with some grading for the ramps.
Quote from: snowc on January 27, 2021, 09:17:45 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 18, 2021, 09:48:09 PM
Given that the funding shortfalls started before the pandemic, it looks like NC has bitten off more than they can chew with all these interstates. They should be banned from requesting more until the finish the ones they have. And the new MUTCD won't allow them to have their interstate without doing the work any more, as the "Future XX" shields they use in place of "Interstate XX" will not be in the 2020 MUTCD (probably because of NC abusing them!).
Quote from: fillup420 on January 18, 2021, 08:40:45 PM
this is why NCDOT should've waited to sign it all at once. The only thing the public has really gotten out of this is a large jump in exit numbers on US 64. It jumps from Exit 14 to Exit 432.
Agreed. Interstates should not be signed unless a section would make sense to be signed with that number even if no further extensions ever happen. As we've seen, plans can fall though, and you can end up with short, disconnected sections of interstate all over the place for a long time (if not forever).
That is what I said earlier. Give up making new interstates, and just work on the existing ones. Example: NC540 has been VERY slow to a crawl in regards to construction. Going down US 401, and all I see is dirt with some grading for the ramps.
Every road project in the state seems to take years longer than it should, like there is some economy in moving super slow. Is it just a couple of construction companies working on multiple projects? Because you see no activity more than you see workers on the site.
I-87 is a useless project. It meanders off course so much that the benefits of an interstate to Norfolk won't be realized. Only Eastern NC counties may enjoy having a useless interstate nearby.
Quote from: architect77 on January 27, 2021, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: snowc on January 27, 2021, 09:17:45 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 18, 2021, 09:48:09 PM
Given that the funding shortfalls started before the pandemic, it looks like NC has bitten off more than they can chew with all these interstates. They should be banned from requesting more until the finish the ones they have. And the new MUTCD won't allow them to have their interstate without doing the work any more, as the "Future XX" shields they use in place of "Interstate XX" will not be in the 2020 MUTCD (probably because of NC abusing them!).
Quote from: fillup420 on January 18, 2021, 08:40:45 PM
this is why NCDOT should've waited to sign it all at once. The only thing the public has really gotten out of this is a large jump in exit numbers on US 64. It jumps from Exit 14 to Exit 432.
Agreed. Interstates should not be signed unless a section would make sense to be signed with that number even if no further extensions ever happen. As we've seen, plans can fall though, and you can end up with short, disconnected sections of interstate all over the place for a long time (if not forever).
That is what I said earlier. Give up making new interstates, and just work on the existing ones. Example: NC540 has been VERY slow to a crawl in regards to construction. Going down US 401, and all I see is dirt with some grading for the ramps.
Every road project in the state seems to take years longer than it should, like there is some economy in moving super slow. Is it just a couple of construction companies working on multiple projects? Because you see no activity more than you see workers on the site.
I-87 is a useless project. It meanders off course so much that the benefits of an interstate to Norfolk won't be realized. Only Eastern NC counties may enjoy having a useless interstate nearby.
How ironic. I just went on I-87 this morning and as you said, this is a useless highway that doesn't even need a number. It works best with a US highway, but DEFINITELY not with an interstate. The shoulders are not wide enough for people to pull over, the speed limits are WAY too high for a bypass (Sanford Bypass has a 60mph SL; K-Dale Bypass is 70mph, the maximum highway SL for NC) So, agree with you 100%
Useless or not, I have a feeling Interstates 42 and 87 will not be the last freeways North Carolina will slap an Interstate shield on. I speculate that the US 74 freeway (Columbus to Kings Mountain), or the US 1 freeway (Sanford to Raleigh) might be next; the latter of which was attempted to become Interstate 140 in 1999.
Quote from: snowc on January 27, 2021, 04:25:34 PM
the speed limits are WAY too high for a bypass (Sanford Bypass has a 60mph SL; K-Dale Bypass is 70mph, the maximum highway SL for NC) So, agree with you 100%
I'd disagree, you can post lower speed limits all day long, people are still going to drive as fast. Might as well post the limits closer to the reality.
The US-64 freeway (including the Knightdale Bypass) from I-440 to Williamston is posted at 70 mph, with the exception of a 65 mph segment through Rocky Mount.
The US-421 bypass around Sanford is posted at 65 mph, and the US-1 bypass west of Sanford, along with the entire highway northeast to Raleigh, is posted at 70 mph. Honestly, this is surprising given the US-421 bypass is much newer and built to interstate standards, whereas US-1 is much older, narrower, and lacks shoulders. I'm not saying the US-1 freeway should be decreased, it's appropriate at 70 mph, however the US-421 bypass should easily be able to be posted at 70 mph as well.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 08:22:15 PM
I speculate that the US 74 freeway (Columbus to Kings Mountain)
I'm surprised the entire US-74 corridor between Columbus and Rockingham (utilizing I-85 and I-485 near Gastonia and Charlotte) has not been designated as a future corridor, especially given it's a logical addition and NCDOT is eventually going to upgrade the entire corridor to interstate standards regardless.
A little more fictional, and I've suggested this before, but delete I-74 in North Carolina, and designate the entire US-74 corridor from Columbus to Wilmington one I-3x. Replace the I-74 segment between I-77 and I-73 through Winston-Salem and High Point with an I-x73 or I-x77.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2021, 08:48:27 PM
Quote from: snowc on January 27, 2021, 04:25:34 PM
the speed limits are WAY too high for a bypass (Sanford Bypass has a 60mph SL; K-Dale Bypass is 70mph, the maximum highway SL for NC) So, agree with you 100%
I'd disagree, you can post lower speed limits all day long, people are still going to drive as fast. Might as well post the limits closer to the reality.
The US-64 freeway (including the Knightdale Bypass) from I-440 to Williamston is posted at 70 mph, with the exception of a 65 mph segment through Rocky Mount.
The US-421 bypass around Sanford is posted at 65 mph, and the US-1 bypass west of Sanford, along with the entire highway northeast to Raleigh, is posted at 70 mph. Honestly, this is surprising given the US-421 bypass is much newer and built to interstate standards, whereas US-1 is much older, narrower, and lacks shoulders. I'm not saying the US-1 freeway should be decreased, it's appropriate at 70 mph, however the US-421 bypass should easily be able to be posted at 70 mph as well.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 08:22:15 PM
I speculate that the US 74 freeway (Columbus to Kings Mountain)
I'm surprised the entire US-74 corridor between Columbus and Rockingham (utilizing I-85 and I-485 near Gastonia and Charlotte) has not been designated as a future corridor, especially given it's a logical addition and NCDOT is eventually going to upgrade the entire corridor to interstate standards regardless.
A little more fictional, and I've suggested this before, but delete I-74 in North Carolina, and designate the entire US-74 corridor from Columbus to Wilmington one I-3x. Replace the I-74 segment between I-77 and I-73 through Winston-Salem and High Point with an I-x73 or I-x77.
Isn't 421 BP in sanford going to be an Interstate, according to Bob Malme?
And that's the reason I-140 never went to be approved by AASHTO? http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/ih140.html (http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/ih140.html)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 08:22:15 PM
Useless or not, I have a feeling Interstates 42 and 87 will not be the last freeways North Carolina will slap an Interstate shield on. I speculate that the US 74 freeway (Columbus to Kings Mountain), or the US 1 freeway (Sanford to Raleigh) might be next; the latter of which was attempted to become Interstate 140 in 1999.
That's what I said in my post. Given the age of the road, the narrowness of lanes, and the shoulders not wide enough, I-140 was denied in the 1990s
Quote from: snowc on January 28, 2021, 07:49:14 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 08:22:15 PM
Useless or not, I have a feeling Interstates 42 and 87 will not be the last freeways North Carolina will slap an Interstate shield on. I speculate that the US 74 freeway (Columbus to Kings Mountain), or the US 1 freeway (Sanford to Raleigh) might be next; the latter of which was attempted to become Interstate 140 in 1999.
That's what I said in my post. Given the age of the road, the narrowness of lanes, and the shoulders not wide enough, I-140 was denied in the 1990s
The cross section of US-1 between Raleigh and Sanford meets interstate standards. The lanes are 12 ft wide, and the right shoulders are 10 ft paved. The only potential issue I could see are overpass bridges and vertical clearance issues on some of the older stretches. A lot of that highway was built in the 1960s as a super-two on a 4 lane right of way and dualized in the 1990s.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2021, 10:11:36 AM
Quote from: snowc on January 28, 2021, 07:49:14 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 08:22:15 PM
Useless or not, I have a feeling Interstates 42 and 87 will not be the last freeways North Carolina will slap an Interstate shield on. I speculate that the US 74 freeway (Columbus to Kings Mountain), or the US 1 freeway (Sanford to Raleigh) might be next; the latter of which was attempted to become Interstate 140 in 1999.
That's what I said in my post. Given the age of the road, the narrowness of lanes, and the shoulders not wide enough, I-140 was denied in the 1990s
The cross section of US-1 between Raleigh and Sanford meets interstate standards. The lanes are 12 ft wide, and the right shoulders are 10 ft paved. The only potential issue I could see are overpass bridges and vertical clearance issues on some of the older stretches. A lot of that highway was built in the 1960s as a super-two on a 4 lane right of way and dualized in the 1990s.
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/1/27/proc/3397569_c417126152b4296cda3896dfc2e04392.jpg)
This is what US 1 looks like when I drove it yesterday.
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/1/27/proc/3397569_5a09111a7cd21f729d5b49170c4a6caa.jpg)
The bridges may look old, but boy they don't look tall at all. :-o
^ Based on snowc's photos, the left shoulders are substandard. That bridge parapet might be as well.
So, no, US 1 is not Interstate-standard.
Quote from: froggie on January 28, 2021, 10:40:09 AM
^ Based on snowc's photos, the left shoulders are substandard. That bridge parapet might be as well.
So, no, US 1 is not Interstate-standard.
Now we know why I-140 wasn't approved! Thanks @froggie !
Quote from: snowc on January 28, 2021, 10:24:25 AM
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/1/27/proc/3397569_c417126152b4296cda3896dfc2e04392.jpg)
This is what US 1 looks like when I drove it yesterday.
12 foot lanes, 10 foot right paved shoulder. Not seeing anything abnormal.
Quote from: snowc on January 28, 2021, 10:24:25 AM
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/1/27/proc/3397569_5a09111a7cd21f729d5b49170c4a6caa.jpg)
The bridges may look old, but boy they don't look tall at all. :-o
Debatable, would have to see actual documentation to how high each bridge is. There's no advisory sign indicating any super-low clearances.
Quote from: froggie on January 28, 2021, 10:40:09 AM
^ Based on snowc's photos, the left shoulders are substandard. That bridge parapet might be as well.
So, no, US 1 is not Interstate-standard.
That is true, the left shoulder might be slightly less than 4 ft.
Either way, it would not involve much work to bring US-1 up to interstate standards. The left shoulder issue can be addressed in a routine resurfacing project.
Overall, the condition of the older sections US-1 freeway is not that much different than older interstate highway segments. General standards are met, full control of access, outside shoulders, lane widths, and left shoulder can relatively easily be addressed.
Draft cost estimates and prioritization scores have been released for all candidate projects apart of the Hampton Roads 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Currently, a project that would upgrade US-17 between I-64 and the North Carolina state line to interstate standards has a year-of-expenditure (through 2045) cost of $406.4 million, and a prioritization score of 87.
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/012621%2006_Handout1%202045%20LRTP%20Roadway%20Candidate%20Projects.pdf
Generally speaking NCDOT only does interstate conversions that are pushed by local politicos. As far as I know no one in Sanford is pushing for an interstate now, but who knows what the future might bring. Of course I-140 is at Wilmington now so US 1 would have to be I-340 or maybe I-740.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2021, 06:09:30 PM
Draft cost estimates and prioritization scores have been released for all candidate projects apart of the Hampton Roads 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Currently, a project that would upgrade US-17 between I-64 and the North Carolina state line to interstate standards has a year-of-expenditure (through 2045) cost of $406.4 million, and a prioritization score of 87.
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/012621%2006_Handout1%202045%20LRTP%20Roadway%20Candidate%20Projects.pdf
That seems to be an indicator that if VA's portion of I-87 is to get done within any reasonable timeframe, it'll require a sizeable infusion of federal dollars to offset the fact that, candidly, the project doesn't provide much in the way of direct benefits to Chesapeake or any of the other Hampton Roads "components" -- which is what dragged the overall priority score down. The only other way to overcome that issue would be for NC itself, the instigator of the corridor concept to begin with, to provide financing -- and with its current precarious situation, that's unlikely (although things might change over the 24-year planning cycle cited in the release). That leaves Federal largesse; although as part of HPC #13 it does garner the maximum 80% federal "aid", projects rated higher in the planning list likely receive a sizeable chunk of Fed funds as well, so that standard probably doesn't figure too highly in the rankings or project evaluation. Some sort of USDOT grant -- or the reinstatement of Congressional "earmarks" (a distinct possibility within the current political atmosphere) -- would likely have to precede any solid activity toward building VA's share of I-87.
One thing that could speed up construction on the NC version of I-87: the booming growth in the "Triangle" area of North Carolina. The Hampton Roads area is a popular spot for tourism and other business. The combination is going to put significantly more traffic on the future I-87 corridor.
Hopefully the powers that be will at least secure right of way to build out freeway upgrades when they become desperately needed. Far too often we see important highway corridors that would eventually need major expansions get overrun with development. Properties get built up right next to the road with lots of driveways emptying out onto the highway. That lack of discipline in property development turns any highway upgrades into a painful affair.
QuoteHopefully the powers that be will at least secure right of way to build out freeway upgrades when they become desperately needed. Far too often we see important highway corridors that would eventually need major expansions get overrun with development. Properties get built up right next to the road with lots of driveways emptying out onto the highway. That lack of discipline in property development turns any highway upgrades into a painful affair.
I fear this is going to occur in the Grassfield area in Chesapeake. The city fully recognizes the corridor is apart of the future Raleigh to Norfolk interstate and supports it, though is continuing to build and plan with little regard to potential interchange locations. The highway is limited access though that doesn't prevent developers from building right up to it with little to no room for future ramps, overpasses, etc. Specifically, look at Grassfield Pkwy, and in the future likely Scenic Pkwy.
And the city is planning a mega site development near the North Carolina border, with the prospect of the interstate running alongside it in mind, but is planning to construct an at-grade signalized intersection on rural US-17 using one of the authorized breaks in limited access right of way currently used for farm access.
A lot of that has to do with property rights and development laws in a given state. Some states are better than others. As a general rule, the southern states lean more towards property rights, which has negative implications on right-of-way protection.
There's also the matter of that physical right-of-way. Before the state can protect the right-of-way, they need to have an official map (i.e. get location and possibly environmental studies done). Then they need the funding for right-of-way. And we all saw what happened with that in North Carolina in the courts last year.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 28, 2021, 06:29:53 PM
Generally speaking NCDOT only does interstate conversions that are pushed by local politicos. As far as I know no one in Sanford is pushing for an interstate now, but who knows what the future might bring. Of course I-140 is at Wilmington now so US 1 would have to be I-340 or maybe I-740.
I could be totally off, but you must remember that US1 is not just any ol' highway. It is arguably the one with the most historical significance in the entire country.
Maybe it's not one to be casually renamed as it passes through towns up and down the Eastern Seaboard, even though as I type this I'm thinking of I-95 becoming US1 in/ near Miami.
US74 should get renamed since part of it will be an interstate.
The I-885 in RTP baffles me though, because at some point there are so many interstates in an area that clarity in people's minds of where that red, white , & blue shield with a number will take them to.
Too many reduce the significance of highways signed that way.
I was thinking last night driving in Atlanta of how much emotion in people is evoked for a city with so many weekend visitors. Atlanta doesn't have big guidance signs on secondary roads nor at junctions with interstates, so the little shields on small lane signs at junctions are all visitors have to get them around town.
And you know how relieved you are to spot one when you're driving in an unfamiliar city. and feel half lost.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-10-martin-county-contracts.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-10-martin-county-contracts.aspx)
QuoteWILLIAMSTON — Portions of three primary roadways in Martin County will be resurfaced and rehabilitated under two contracts recently awarded by the N.C. Department of Transportation. The contracts, worth a total of $3.6 million, were both awarded to Barnhill Contracting of Rocky Mount.
The first contract, worth $861,000, is for the milling and resurfacing of 2.6 miles of U.S. 64 Alt between Cullipher Road and West Main Street, as well as on 1.1 miles of U.S. 17 between exit 514 and Garrett Road. The contract also includes patching of the existing pavement and replacement of guardrails.
The second contract, worth $2.7 million, includes pavement rehabilitation on 4.3 miles of U.S. 64, from U.S. 64 Alt to N.C. Highway 125.
Work on the projects can begin this spring and both projects are expected to be complete by the fall or winter of 2022.
(https://i.imgur.com/CqKnVlj.png)
Looks like we have an official answer on I-587. Great job and kudos to @sprjus4! :clap: :clap: :colorful: :colorful:
Quote from: snowc on February 19, 2021, 07:47:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CqKnVlj.png)
Looks like we have an official answer on I-587. Great job and kudos to @sprjus4! :clap: :clap: :colorful: :colorful:
Why north though? The route goes ESE.
(I would've just preferred 46/48)
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 19, 2021, 07:57:56 PM
Quote from: snowc on February 19, 2021, 07:47:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CqKnVlj.png)
Looks like we have an official answer on I-587. Great job and kudos to @sprjus4! :clap: :clap: :colorful: :colorful:
Why north though? The route goes ESE.
(I would've just preferred 46/48)
Quote
Since future I-87 is an odd number the route is considered a north south route and because future I-587 is a spur off that route, it's also considered a north south route. Hope this helps!
NCDOT told @sprjus4 this info. Have more on I42 in its respective form post.
Basically NCDOT doesn't know how 3dis are supposed to work.
That's not even consistent with their own historic usage! In Charlotte before there was I-485, they had I-277 posted as "East" coming off of I-77 (for the south half, and then removing the direction for the north half).
It makes me think the people making the decisions now, only learned the 2di rule (odd N-S / even E-W) and that was it.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 19, 2021, 10:35:36 PM
That's not even consistent with their own historic usage! In Charlotte before there was I-485, they had I-277 posted as "East" coming off of I-77 (for the south half, and then removing the direction for the north half).
It makes me think the people making the decisions now, only learned the 2di rule (odd N-S / even E-W) and that was it.
How historic was that, because I have never seen East-West signs used on I-277. Now I have on I-485, but they later removed them all and kept with North-South throughout.
This was also posted in 2019 when sprjus4 first made that tweet, but it's still silly now. It doesn't help that every single one of NC's 3di's just happen to naturally run in the same direction as their parent. (Future I-274 on the west half of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway is also confirmed to be east/west, despite overall running north-south.)
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 19, 2021, 07:57:56 PM
Quote from: snowc on February 19, 2021, 07:47:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CqKnVlj.png)
Looks like we have an official answer on I-587. Great job and kudos to @sprjus4! :clap: :clap: :colorful: :colorful:
Why north though? The route goes ESE.
(I would've just preferred 46/48)
Yes, ESE from Zebulon to Greenville. So following their policy with Greenville to Zebulon going WNW - albeit barely - they are reversed.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 20, 2021, 09:34:40 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 19, 2021, 07:57:56 PM
Quote from: snowc on February 19, 2021, 07:47:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CqKnVlj.png)
Looks like we have an official answer on I-587. Great job and kudos to @sprjus4! :clap: :clap: :colorful: :colorful:
Why north though? The route goes ESE.
(I would've just preferred 46/48)
Yes, ESE from Zebulon to Greenville. So following their policy with Greenville to Zebulon going WNW - albeit barely - they are reversed.
Thanks for telling me this!
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Why not route it onto 264 Alt?
As a complete route, it deserves an interstate shield
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 20, 2021, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Why not route it onto 264 Alt?
As a complete route, it deserves an interstate shield
Agree with this.
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 20, 2021, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Why not route it onto 264 Alt?
As a complete route, it deserves an interstate shield
Agree with this.
I think it should just be left as US 264. It is not an inter-state route. Hell its barely a full-state route. Its been 264 since 1932, why change it now? No actual benefit comes from adding an interstate number, other than the federal funding for NC DOT. The road doesn't need a new number, or new and incorrect cardinal directions. All these interstate "projects" here are just a waste of time, money, and effort.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Information for North Carolina residents on whether NC ever completely decommissions its US routes can be found by dialing 311.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 20, 2021, 11:40:20 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Information for North Carolina residents on whether NC ever completely decommissions its US routes can be found by dialing 311.
Thanks for the public service announcement, MapMikey. Will take this into account.
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 11:42:21 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 20, 2021, 11:40:20 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Information for North Carolina residents on whether NC ever completely decommissions its US routes can be found by dialing 311.
Thanks for the public service announcement, MapMikey. Will take this into account.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't to be taken seriously. (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_311))
Quote from: 1 on February 20, 2021, 11:43:56 AM
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 11:42:21 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 20, 2021, 11:40:20 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Information for North Carolina residents on whether NC ever completely decommissions its US routes can be found by dialing 311.
Thanks for the public service announcement, MapMikey. Will take this into account.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't to be taken seriously. (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_311))
Now i get it. :colorful: :colorful: :colorful:
Quote from: fillup420 on February 20, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
I think it should just be left as US 264. It is not an inter-state route. Hell its barely a full-state route.
Connects the largest eastern North Carolina city to the state capital, and of course it's not an inter-state route, it's a 3di, not a 2di. Using that logic, you might as well decommission every 3di that's a beltway, urban route, etc.
Quote from: fillup420 on February 20, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 20, 2021, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Why not route it onto 264 Alt?
As a complete route, it deserves an interstate shield
Agree with this.
I think it should just be left as US 264. It is not an inter-state route. Hell its barely a full-state route. Its been 264 since 1932, why change it now? No actual benefit comes from adding an interstate number, other than the federal funding for NC DOT. The road doesn't need a new number, or new and incorrect cardinal directions. All these interstate "projects" here are just a waste of time, money, and effort.
It wasn't NCDOT's idea. US-264 became a future interstate because Greenville had been pushing like hell for it since late 2012. NCDOT usually gives in to the locals, especially where eastern NC is concerned. ENC usually carries a lot of weight in state politics.
That said, I don't have a problem with I-587 (other than NCDOT signing it N/S :banghead:). It's already a 70mph freeway and once the ongoing upgrade project between the Wilson/Greene county line and Greenville wraps up, all that will be left to upgrade is the stretch between Sims and Zebulon.
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 10:12:18 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 20, 2021, 09:34:40 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 19, 2021, 07:57:56 PM
Quote from: snowc on February 19, 2021, 07:47:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CqKnVlj.png)
Looks like we have an official answer on I-587. Great job and kudos to @sprjus4! :clap: :clap: :colorful: :colorful:
Why north though? The route goes ESE.
(I would've just preferred 46/48)
Yes, ESE from Zebulon to Greenville. So following their policy with Greenville to Zebulon going WNW - albeit barely - they are reversed.
Thanks for telling me this!
Looks like shit to me. Will they fix that?
Quote from: LM117 on February 20, 2021, 04:09:26 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on February 20, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 20, 2021, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Why not route it onto 264 Alt?
As a complete route, it deserves an interstate shield
Agree with this.
I think it should just be left as US 264. It is not an inter-state route. Hell its barely a full-state route. Its been 264 since 1932, why change it now? No actual benefit comes from adding an interstate number, other than the federal funding for NC DOT. The road doesn't need a new number, or new and incorrect cardinal directions. All these interstate "projects" here are just a waste of time, money, and effort.
It wasn't NCDOT's idea. US-264 became a future interstate because Greenville had been pushing like hell for it since late 2012. NCDOT usually gives in to the locals, especially where eastern NC is concerned. ENC usually carries a lot of weight in state politics.
That said, I don't have a problem with I-587 (other than NCDOT signing it N/S :banghead:). It's already a 70mph freeway and once the ongoing upgrade project between the Wilson/Greene county line and Greenville wraps up, all that will be left to upgrade is the stretch between Sims and Zebulon.
How about I-595?
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 21, 2021, 10:08:38 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 20, 2021, 04:09:26 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on February 20, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 20, 2021, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Why not route it onto 264 Alt?
As a complete route, it deserves an interstate shield
Agree with this.
I think it should just be left as US 264. It is not an inter-state route. Hell its barely a full-state route. Its been 264 since 1932, why change it now? No actual benefit comes from adding an interstate number, other than the federal funding for NC DOT. The road doesn't need a new number, or new and incorrect cardinal directions. All these interstate "projects" here are just a waste of time, money, and effort.
It wasn't NCDOT's idea. US-264 became a future interstate because Greenville had been pushing like hell for it since late 2012. NCDOT usually gives in to the locals, especially where eastern NC is concerned. ENC usually carries a lot of weight in state politics.
That said, I don't have a problem with I-587 (other than NCDOT signing it N/S :banghead:). It's already a 70mph freeway and once the ongoing upgrade project between the Wilson/Greene county line and Greenville wraps up, all that will be left to upgrade is the stretch between Sims and Zebulon.
How about I-595?
Well since it starts at 87, I think 87 makes more sense as a spur of that route. However, that makes less sense when you look above and realize that you would go north on 587 and south on 87 to go from Greenville to Raleigh. That's such a weird routing. I'd prefer E-W signing, just because it seems opposite to use N-S like they do.
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 21, 2021, 10:46:24 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 21, 2021, 10:08:38 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 20, 2021, 04:09:26 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on February 20, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 20, 2021, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Why not route it onto 264 Alt?
As a complete route, it deserves an interstate shield
Agree with this.
I think it should just be left as US 264. It is not an inter-state route. Hell its barely a full-state route. Its been 264 since 1932, why change it now? No actual benefit comes from adding an interstate number, other than the federal funding for NC DOT. The road doesn't need a new number, or new and incorrect cardinal directions. All these interstate "projects" here are just a waste of time, money, and effort.
It wasn't NCDOT's idea. US-264 became a future interstate because Greenville had been pushing like hell for it since late 2012. NCDOT usually gives in to the locals, especially where eastern NC is concerned. ENC usually carries a lot of weight in state politics.
That said, I don't have a problem with I-587 (other than NCDOT signing it N/S :banghead:). It's already a 70mph freeway and once the ongoing upgrade project between the Wilson/Greene county line and Greenville wraps up, all that will be left to upgrade is the stretch between Sims and Zebulon.
How about I-595?
Well since it starts at 87, I think 87 makes more sense as a spur of that route. However, that makes less sense when you look above and realize that you would go north on 587 and south on 87 to go from Greenville to Raleigh. That's such a weird routing. I'd prefer E-W signing, just because it seems opposite to use N-S like they do.
Actually, at 60+ miles, it might even make more sense as an even 2di, such as the I-46 that I-87 should have been; but since it's only within NC, I-48 might even work. At least (unlike I-42/NC 42) the like-signed state routes don't intersect this pending Interstate. (I anticipate some flack for this notion!)
Regarding I-587 being signed North-South (instead of West-East), tell NCDOT to check I-380 in both PA and IA, I-190 and I-390 in NY, I-270 in MD, and I-464 in VA to see that 3DI spurs of 2DIs do not need to have the same cardinal direction as their "parent". As said by some of our posters, NCDOT needs to brush up on the "understood rules" regarding 2DIs and 3DIs.
NCDOT, just sign future I-587 West-East as that is the direction the soon to be overlapped US 264 is.
Nothing like going from Greenville to Raleigh North at first, then South--all the while heading West.
Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2021, 02:48:17 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 21, 2021, 10:46:24 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 21, 2021, 10:08:38 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 20, 2021, 04:09:26 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on February 20, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 20, 2021, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Why not route it onto 264 Alt?
As a complete route, it deserves an interstate shield
Agree with this.
I think it should just be left as US 264. It is not an inter-state route. Hell its barely a full-state route. Its been 264 since 1932, why change it now? No actual benefit comes from adding an interstate number, other than the federal funding for NC DOT. The road doesn't need a new number, or new and incorrect cardinal directions. All these interstate "projects" here are just a waste of time, money, and effort.
It wasn't NCDOT's idea. US-264 became a future interstate because Greenville had been pushing like hell for it since late 2012. NCDOT usually gives in to the locals, especially where eastern NC is concerned. ENC usually carries a lot of weight in state politics.
That said, I don't have a problem with I-587 (other than NCDOT signing it N/S :banghead:). It's already a 70mph freeway and once the ongoing upgrade project between the Wilson/Greene county line and Greenville wraps up, all that will be left to upgrade is the stretch between Sims and Zebulon.
How about I-595?
Well since it starts at 87, I think 87 makes more sense as a spur of that route. However, that makes less sense when you look above and realize that you would go north on 587 and south on 87 to go from Greenville to Raleigh. That's such a weird routing. I'd prefer E-W signing, just because it seems opposite to use N-S like they do.
Actually, at 60+ miles, it might even make more sense as an even 2di, such as the I-46 that I-87 should have been; but since it's only within NC, I-48 might even work. At least (unlike I-42/NC 42) the like-signed state routes don't intersect this pending Interstate. (I anticipate some flack for this notion!)
It's definitely as long as I-12.
Quote from: amroad17 on February 22, 2021, 10:53:59 PM
Regarding I-587 being signed North-South (instead of West-East), tell NCDOT to check I-380 in both PA and IA, I-190 and I-390 in NY, I-270 in MD, and I-464 in VA to see that 3DI spurs of 2DIs do not need to have the same cardinal direction as their "parent". As said by some of our posters, NCDOT needs to brush up on the "understood rules" regarding 2DIs and 3DIs.
NCDOT, just sign future I-587 West-East as that is the direction the soon to be overlapped US 264 is.
Nothing like going from Greenville to Raleigh North at first, then South--all the while heading West.
sprjus4, LM117, (and others) have definitely complained about that direction signage that looks bad. Including me.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 22, 2021, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2021, 02:48:17 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 21, 2021, 10:46:24 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 21, 2021, 10:08:38 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 20, 2021, 04:09:26 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on February 20, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Quote from: snowc on February 20, 2021, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 20, 2021, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
IMO I think US 264 should be decommissioned being it's a one state route and it's going to be concurrent west of Greenville completely with it and I-87. It's just almost there but 65 miles shy, so just give the non freeway part a state number and be done.
Why not route it onto 264 Alt?
As a complete route, it deserves an interstate shield
Agree with this.
I think it should just be left as US 264. It is not an inter-state route. Hell its barely a full-state route. Its been 264 since 1932, why change it now? No actual benefit comes from adding an interstate number, other than the federal funding for NC DOT. The road doesn't need a new number, or new and incorrect cardinal directions. All these interstate "projects" here are just a waste of time, money, and effort.
It wasn't NCDOT's idea. US-264 became a future interstate because Greenville had been pushing like hell for it since late 2012. NCDOT usually gives in to the locals, especially where eastern NC is concerned. ENC usually carries a lot of weight in state politics.
That said, I don't have a problem with I-587 (other than NCDOT signing it N/S :banghead:). It's already a 70mph freeway and once the ongoing upgrade project between the Wilson/Greene county line and Greenville wraps up, all that will be left to upgrade is the stretch between Sims and Zebulon.
How about I-595?
Well since it starts at 87, I think 87 makes more sense as a spur of that route. However, that makes less sense when you look above and realize that you would go north on 587 and south on 87 to go from Greenville to Raleigh. That's such a weird routing. I'd prefer E-W signing, just because it seems opposite to use N-S like they do.
Actually, at 60+ miles, it might even make more sense as an even 2di, such as the I-46 that I-87 should have been; but since it's only within NC, I-48 might even work. At least (unlike I-42/NC 42) the like-signed state routes don't intersect this pending Interstate. (I anticipate some flack for this notion!)
It's definitely as long as I-12.
Actually, I-12 is about 85 miles long; US 264(I-587) between US 64 (I-87) and Greenville is approximately the same length as I-19 in AZ.
Of course, Interstate 587 can't exist until Interstate 87 reaches present-day Exit 436, at the very least (not to mention both routes being upgraded to Interstate Standards). I also agree that Interstates 87 and 587 should be signed as East-West (87 at least to Williamston, 587 its entire route).
Why can't we use I-595 as an interstate once I-87 gets fully built to interstate stardards?
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 03:33:17 PM
Why can't we use I-595 as an interstate once I-87 gets fully built to interstate stardards?
Which I-595? There's one here in Florida, and the secret one in Delmarva. There was also a proposed upgrade for US 1 in Arlington VA, that was never built.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on March 15, 2021, 08:02:52 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 03:33:17 PM
Why can't we use I-595 as an interstate once I-87 gets fully built to interstate stardards?
Which I-595? There's one here in Florida, and the secret one in Delmarva. There was also a proposed upgrade for US 1 in Arlington VA, that was never built.
He's referring to re-naming the Future I-87 corridor between Raleigh and Norfolk to I-595.
I drove the segment of US 17 from Williamston to Elizabeth City for the first time yesterday. There is no way this highway will be an interstate in less than 25 years, if ever. As the recent STIP's project prioritization and selection highlighted, the costs far exceed the benefits.
- Upgrade 64 to interstate standards from Knightdale to I-95 and Rocky Mount and sign it a 3di
- Select interchanges/grade separations between Williamston and Elizabeth City where warranted and feasible
- Superstreet everything else, slap some 60 mph signs up and call it a day
- Use the hundreds of millions of dollars it would take to complete this project and use them on improvements that are actually needed elsewhere across the state
At minimum, I could definitely see construction of an interstate-grade upgrade between Elizabeth City and I-64 in the next two decades as growth continues between the two areas... at least on NCDOT's part.
The benefits to be realized for the corridor aren't going to be there until the entire highway is completed between the two metropolitan areas. Currently, the Hampton Roads metro of over 2 million does not have an interstate connection to I-95 South. It's definitely more of a long term goal than short term, it's certainly not a high priority need today. Unless US-58 is upgraded in Virginia to interstate standards... currently estimated at nearly $3 billion, it's going to get constructed at some point in the future.
As for the short term, the speed limit needs to be increased to at least 60 mph on the non-limited-access portions of the route. At least they have increased all of the limited access portions to 70 mph, but it's a crawl at 55 mph... 60 mph is not much better, but I'd rather be driving 70 mph in a 60 mph than 70 mph in a 55 mph.
If even NCDOT recognizes it's not a high priority today, then why request and sign a 2di number that won't be complete for any significant length for decades? It would have been better to stick with I-495 until there was significant progress on the rest of the corridor.
Quote from: vdeane on March 15, 2021, 02:02:48 PM
If even NCDOT recognizes it's not a high priority today, then why request and sign a 2di number that won't be complete for any significant length for decades? It would have been better to stick with I-495 until there was significant progress on the rest of the corridor.
Once the I-495 designation was delisted after I-87 was adopted, it was very unlikely that any I-495 signage would be retained, since it too, like its successor route, abruptly ended (at least regarding I-signage) a few miles east of I-440 and never was posted east to I-95, the original plan for that route. IMO, it should have remained a "hidden" interstate until meeting interstate standards east at least as far as I-95; it does nothing for navigational purposes.
Quote from: sparker on March 16, 2021, 03:30:38 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 15, 2021, 02:02:48 PM
If even NCDOT recognizes it's not a high priority today, then why request and sign a 2di number that won't be complete for any significant length for decades? It would have been better to stick with I-495 until there was significant progress on the rest of the corridor.
Once the I-495 designation was delisted after I-87 was adopted, it was very unlikely that any I-495 signage would be retained, since it too, like its successor route, abruptly ended (at least regarding I-signage) a few miles east of I-440 and never was posted east to I-95, the original plan for that route. IMO, it should have remained a "hidden" interstate until meeting interstate standards east at least as far as I-95; it does nothing for navigational purposes.
Which gets to my question of why even request it in the first place. NC really needs to stop biting off more than they can chew. I'm also not a fan of short segments of interstates that serve no navigational purpose being signed. It just confuses people and clutters up the system.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 15, 2021, 09:51:34 AM
At minimum, I could definitely see construction of an interstate-grade upgrade between Elizabeth City and I-64 in the next two decades as growth continues between the two areas... at least on NCDOT's part.
The benefits to be realized for the corridor aren't going to be there until the entire highway is completed between the two metropolitan areas. Currently, the Hampton Roads metro of over 2 million does not have an interstate connection to I-95 South. It's definitely more of a long term goal than short term, it's certainly not a high priority need today. Unless US-58 is upgraded in Virginia to interstate standards... currently estimated at nearly $3 billion, it's going to get constructed at some point in the future.
As for the short term, the speed limit needs to be increased to at least 60 mph on the non-limited-access portions of the route. At least they have increased all of the limited access portions to 70 mph, but it's a crawl at 55 mph... 60 mph is not much better, but I'd rather be driving 70 mph in a 60 mph than 70 mph in a 55 mph.
Wow that is over build. What is wrong with US 17 and US 17 By-pass? US 17 By-Pass is almost interstate like anyway.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on March 15, 2021, 09:28:56 AM
I drove the segment of US 17 from Williamston to Elizabeth City for the first time yesterday. There is no way this highway will be an interstate in less than 25 years, if ever. As the recent STIP's project prioritization and selection highlighted, the costs far exceed the benefits.
- Upgrade 64 to interstate standards from Knightdale to I-95 and Rocky Mount and sign it a 3di
- Select interchanges/grade separations between Williamston and Elizabeth City where warranted and feasible
- Superstreet everything else, slap some 60 mph signs up and call it a day
- Use the hundreds of millions of dollars it would take to complete this project and use them on improvements that are actually needed elsewhere across the state
I'm sure that would just be an extended I-87.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 16, 2021, 04:13:52 PM
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on March 15, 2021, 09:28:56 AM
I drove the segment of US 17 from Williamston to Elizabeth City for the first time yesterday. There is no way this highway will be an interstate in less than 25 years, if ever. As the recent STIP's project prioritization and selection highlighted, the costs far exceed the benefits.
- Upgrade 64 to interstate standards from Knightdale to I-95 and Rocky Mount and sign it a 3di
- Select interchanges/grade separations between Williamston and Elizabeth City where warranted and feasible
- Superstreet everything else, slap some 60 mph signs up and call it a day
- Use the hundreds of millions of dollars it would take to complete this project and use them on improvements that are actually needed elsewhere across the state
I'm sure that would just be an extended I-87.
Too many NC folks (including the DOT itself) with a vested interest in the development of this corridor; while only portions of US 64 (the section east of I-440 currently signed as I-87) and from Tarboro out to US 17 are presently at Interstate status, the south/west 95 miles are functioning as a freeway, as is the Elizabeth City bypass. At this point, despite NC's unforeseen fiscal woes, the project remains on the books, but, like with other in-state Interstate projects, with an extended time frame for completion. It's already been 5 years since I-87 was designated, but it's more than likely that the US 17 portion of the corridor will take 20-25+ more years to reach the VA state line as a full-status Interstate, but if NCDOT's activities regarding I-73 & 74 are any indication, they'll just absorb the delays and plow through whenever it fits into the budget.
BTW, "boulevardization" wouldn't be an improvement over much of what constitutes present US 17 along the corridor's path; it's either 4-lane with/without a median barrier, or the rural doppelganger of the urban "boulevard", the "5-lane" format with a center turn lane. If & when the Interstate corridor sees actual construction, some of it will be overlaid and some bypassed, depending upon the facility layout and what is situated alongside it. It'll be interesting to see how NCDOT intends to provide free-flow lanes and provisions for local egress in some of US 17's closer quarters.
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2021, 02:20:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 16, 2021, 03:30:38 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 15, 2021, 02:02:48 PM
If even NCDOT recognizes it's not a high priority today, then why request and sign a 2di number that won't be complete for any significant length for decades? It would have been better to stick with I-495 until there was significant progress on the rest of the corridor.
Once the I-495 designation was delisted after I-87 was adopted, it was very unlikely that any I-495 signage would be retained, since it too, like its successor route, abruptly ended (at least regarding I-signage) a few miles east of I-440 and never was posted east to I-95, the original plan for that route. IMO, it should have remained a "hidden" interstate until meeting interstate standards east at least as far as I-95; it does nothing for navigational purposes.
Which gets to my question of why even request it in the first place.
The Regional Transportation Alliance in Raleigh had been pushing hard for an interstate connection to Hampton Roads for years and once the political muscle of eastern NC finally joined in, that was all she wrote. I grew up in ENC and that region more often than not carries a lot of political weight (regardless of party).
I-495 was Plan B after FHWA had given NCDOT's I-44 request in 2012 the cold shoulder, likely because FHWA knew there was virtually zero chance the entire corridor would be upgraded within the 25-year period, which is why the RTA & ENC decided to get Congress involved. Nobody really expected Congress to move as quick as it did in designating US-64/US-17 a future interstate and High Priority Corridor, otherwise NCDOT wouldn't have wasted time & money getting I-495 shields only to be replaced by I-87 within such a short time.
And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment and have I-87 run by itself on the freeway (maybe not here since this was a 2-lane freeway) (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.9703296,-77.8337939/35.97038,-77.9944072/@35.955011,-77.9532278,12.88z).
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8332237,-77.3740461,3a,15y,48h,89.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGa9PbxJW0Sj1xNLNQH1W1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8314332,-77.3740325,3a,31.1y,24.69h,92.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_k_lTRqHSPnM4wCW8scvOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I'm sure these signs will have I-87 signs takeover.
Map of US 64 back on it's old alignment (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.7941924,-78.5827696/35.8408815,-77.052387/@35.8725303,-78.1298035,10.33z/data=!4m59!4m58!1m55!3m4!1m2!1d-78.507779!2d35.7962435!3s0x89ac5c9d3f251e7b:0xd462ebfe14837482!3m4!1m2!1d-78.3374177!2d35.8219709!3s0x89ac4700374f398f:0xa9a5d970814cffb!3m4!1m2!1d-78.1491331!2d35.9274016!3s0x89ac3188b3f8e745:0x4ec1c5167514f663!3m4!1m2!1d-78.0672002!2d35.9606167!3s0x89ac2dadbe677197:0x2648cae8a702ba1a!3m4!1m2!1d-77.8134423!2d35.9472868!3s0x89ae8721de0cd4d9:0x3975b6ec253c61b1!3m4!1m2!1d-77.7048061!2d35.9414072!3s0x89ae8852363b31c9:0xfe0cd85a28a84890!3m4!1m2!1d-77.6007134!2d35.926048!3s0x89ae8afc1a674879:0x72c9f4ea2941f061!3m4!1m2!1d-77.5627267!2d35.9064744!3s0x89ae8b2d581362af:0x5c06fee065ce3a6e!3m4!1m2!1d-77.3938241!2d35.8041101!3s0x89aef068a32ebd11:0x888eebfedd5b87c8!3m4!1m2!1d-77.3291514!2d35.824213!3s0x89aefa4c543f1507:0x9f09250a2e212622!3m4!1m2!1d-77.1376497!2d35.8375462!3s0x89af017adf254899:0xc075c69ab06e3c18!1m0!3e0)
For US-17, i'm sure I-87 will have a long concurrency with that one.
Quote from: tolbs17And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment
This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings). The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU. Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
Quote from: tolbs17And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment
This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings). The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU. Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.
Same with I-587 and US-264?
I could see the US 264 designation being dropped west of Greenville once the Interstate 587 designation comes into fruition. I doubt we'll see US 64 being retracted within the state, although existing US 64 east of Williamston could theoretically be downgraded to NC 64, since that designation has not been used since 1925 (probably due to the designation of US 64 through the state).
I think that US64 should be highlighted through signage statewide as it's the longest highway in the state at ~640 miles from mountains to sea.
That's almost 2/3 the way across Texas, I think one interstate clocks in at over 1,000 miles across the Lone Star state which I've driven on and gotten 3 speeding tickets in West Texas.
Quote from: architect77 on March 17, 2021, 06:06:21 PM
That's almost 2/3 the way across Texas, I think one interstate clocks in at over 1,000 miles across the Lone Star state which I've driven on and gotten 3 speeding tickets in West Texas.
The exit numbers would be 4 digits if that was the case. The highest exit number is in the 800s.
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2021, 06:23:15 PM
Quote from: architect77 on March 17, 2021, 06:06:21 PM
That's almost 2/3 the way across Texas, I think one interstate clocks in at over 1,000 miles across the Lone Star state which I've driven on and gotten 3 speeding tickets in West Texas.
The exit numbers would be 4 digits if that was the case. The highest exit number is in the 800s.
I honestly believe that it's over 1,000 miles across Texas. it may require 2 interstates to do it. I-10 through El Paso and another maybe from I-40 but even so that makes US64 seem even more special in NC at 640 miles long.
OK I was wrong but not by a huge amount.
US64 even gets mentioned on this tangent of a website, not by name but by mentioning Ocrakoke.
https://weekendroady.com/2011/07/30/800-miles-in-one-state/
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
Quote from: tolbs17And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment
This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings). The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU. Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.
Ugh hum. US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 17, 2021, 06:45:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
Quote from: tolbs17And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment
This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings). The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU. Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.
Ugh hum. US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.
US-117 was on the freeway, and when they approved I-795, it was moved back on its original route. I mean I kinda get US-64 will stay on the freeway. US-264 should seriously be moved back though. We don't need so many US highways on freeways where new interstates can do their job.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 17, 2021, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 17, 2021, 06:45:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
Quote from: tolbs17And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment
This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings). The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU. Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.
Ugh hum. US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.
US-117 was on the freeway, and when they approved I-795, it was moved back on its original route. I mean I kinda get US-64 will stay on the freeway. US-264 should seriously be moved back though. We don't need so many US highways on freeways where new interstates can do their job.
Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business" interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 17, 2021, 07:55:30 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 17, 2021, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 17, 2021, 06:45:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
Quote from: tolbs17And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment
This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings). The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU. Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.
(https://i.imgur.com/xhi970D.png)
Ugh hum. US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.
US-117 was on the freeway, and when they approved I-795, it was moved back on its original route. I mean I kinda get US-64 will stay on the freeway. US-264 should seriously be moved back though. We don't need so many US highways on freeways where new interstates can do their job.
Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business" interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.
Like you have I-587 and US-264 run together and this is the proposed sign for I-587? Makes no sense for me..
Quote from: roadman65 on March 17, 2021, 06:45:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
Quote from: tolbs17And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment
This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings). The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU. Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.
Ugh hum. US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.
13 through Virginia Beach and Norfolk is a major 4-lane arterial highway.
AASHTO violated their own policies on allowing 117 to move back to its old alignment. The old route was not "improved" and certainly wasn't 4+ lanes like 13 in Virginia Beach was.
Quote from: froggie on March 18, 2021, 12:34:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 17, 2021, 06:45:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
Quote from: tolbs17And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment
This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings). The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU. Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.
Ugh hum. US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.
13 through Virginia Beach and Norfolk is a major 4-lane arterial highway.
AASHTO violated their own policies on allowing 117 to move back to its old alignment. The old route was not "improved" and certainly wasn't 4+ lanes like 13 in Virginia Beach was.
So US-117 should have stayed on the freeway? Or should have been called US-117 bypass instead?
Quote from: froggie on March 18, 2021, 12:34:51 PM
13 through Virginia Beach and Norfolk is a major 4-lane arterial highway.
Wouldn't I-64 still have been the higher quality route? Military Highway is a 4 to 8 lane non-limited-access highway, whereas I-64 is a 4 to 8 lane controlled access interstate highway.
^ At the time 13 was moved back onto Military Hwy (1980), both routes were 4 lanes south of 264 (and the reversible HOV didn't exist north of 264 either). Sure, 64 is the higher quality route by virtue of being controlled access, but Military Hwy is about a mile-and-a-half shorter and there's no doubting that it was and remains a principal arterial highway. There's really not a good comparison to the 117 example because 117 by and large is still a rural 2-lane road with minimal improvements.
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2021, 06:23:15 PM
Quote from: architect77 on March 17, 2021, 06:06:21 PM
That's almost 2/3 the way across Texas, I think one interstate clocks in at over 1,000 miles across the Lone Star state which I've driven on and gotten 3 speeding tickets in West Texas.
The exit numbers would be 4 digits if that was the case. The highest exit number is in the 800s.
It's 878 near the Sabine River and the LA border
Sabine River turnaround is Exit 880.
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 17, 2021, 07:55:30 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 17, 2021, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 17, 2021, 06:45:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
Quote from: tolbs17And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment
This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings). The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU. Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.
Ugh hum. US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.
US-117 was on the freeway, and when they approved I-795, it was moved back on its original route. I mean I kinda get US-64 will stay on the freeway. US-264 should seriously be moved back though. We don't need so many US highways on freeways where new interstates can do their job.
Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business" interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.
The interstate system was designed 70+ years ago with the interstate routes mostly paralleling existing US numbered highways. So it was obvious from the beginning that one of three things would have to happen to the US highway:
(1) move the US number onto the interstate
(2) leave it where it is
(3) decommission it.
I favor (b), but what's crazy is that there's no hard-and-fast rule, even within states and certainly not nationally.
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 17, 2021, 07:55:30 PM
Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business" interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.
Except in the case of NC, they have a long history of moving US routes onto the new interstate, then removing them:
US 64 Statesville
US 29 Charlotte
US 29 Salisbury
US 117 Fremont
US 70 Raleigh
US 401 Raleigh
US 17 Wilmington
US 220 Ellerbe
My argument here is that NC specifically can't make up its mind what to do with these parallel routes. Incidentally I also favor leaving them be.
Unless the route is unsafe, there are many opportunities in N.C. to move US routes off of interstates. They should start with US 21 through Charlotte.
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 24, 2021, 07:19:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 17, 2021, 07:55:30 PM
Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business" interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.
Except in the case of NC, they have a long history of moving US routes onto the new interstate, then removing them:
US 64 Statesville
US 29 Charlotte
US 29 Salisbury
US 117 Fremont
US 70 Raleigh
US 401 Raleigh
US 17 Wilmington
US 220 Ellerbe
My argument here is that NC specifically can't make up its mind what to do with these parallel routes. Incidentally I also favor leaving them be.
Not to get too far off-topic, but I was still living in Wayne County when US-117 was put back on it's old alignment. That happened because Fremont and Pikeville wanted it due to it's long familiarity with the local residents. They didn't like having two different US-117's. I grew up in Fremont and as backwards as that town is, I'm glad they got NCDOT to change it back.
Funny thing is that the idea of getting the freeway designated as I-795 was first floated by Wayne County in 2001, but it didn't get any traction and no further mention was made until NCDOT got approval for it in 2007. I never understood why NCDOT didn't try to get I-795 approved from the start in time for the freeway's opening in 2006 instead of playing musical chairs with US-117.
Quote from: froggie on March 22, 2021, 11:38:03 PM
Sabine River turnaround is Exit 880.
wait a minute... interstate highways have exits that go beyond 600+ miles? :hmmm:
Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes. I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles. All three have exit numbers well over 600.
Quote from: froggie on March 25, 2021, 11:50:43 AM
Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes. I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles. All three have exit numbers well over 600.
Wow, yes I was serious! Never seen anything beyond 420 in NC.
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:55:58 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 25, 2021, 11:50:43 AM
Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes. I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles. All three have exit numbers well over 600.
Wow, yes I was serious! Never seen anything beyond 420 in NC.
North Carolina also exceeds 500...here's the highest one - https://goo.gl/maps/r3Wp1ULxX53M8Aji8
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 25, 2021, 12:02:16 PM
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:55:58 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 25, 2021, 11:50:43 AM
Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes. I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles. All three have exit numbers well over 600.
Wow, yes I was serious! Never seen anything beyond 420 in NC.
North Carolina also exceeds 500...here's the highest one - https://goo.gl/maps/r3Wp1ULxX53M8Aji8
Holy crap! That's now the highest I've seen in my life.
Quote from: froggie on March 25, 2021, 11:50:43 AM
Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes. I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles. All three have exit numbers well over 600.
And guess what, California didn't even have numbers on any freeway/interstate exits until the Feds forced them to add them in 2000s. Exits just said "Exit". I lived there for 5 years in the 90s and no numbers were used.
Quote from: architect77 on March 25, 2021, 05:37:52 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 25, 2021, 11:50:43 AM
Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes. I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles. All three have exit numbers well over 600.
And guess what, California didn't even have numbers on any freeway/interstate exits until the Feds forced them to add them in 2000s. Exits just said "Exit". I lived there for 5 years in the 90s and no numbers were used.
After the abortive effort from the late '60's, the actual numbering effort on the state's portion of the Interstate system began in early 1997 and was effectively completed by about 2004; at the discretion of the individual district, other freeways, including US 101, started posting exit numbers about 1998; most freeways within the state feature exit numbers today. Mileposting is a different story; that seems to be a task too herculean for Caltrans to swallow right now (an attempt to do so along CA 58 circa 2003-04 was abandoned within a couple of years). Sure don't expect to see extensive mileposting in my own lifetime!
Question - should I-87 from US-64 Bus to the US-64/264 split be widened to 8-lanes right off the bat instead of 6? :)
That's to only estimate if explosive growth in that area I assume.
imo i say if AADT is higher than 90,000 then it definitely needs 8 lanes.
I think 8 lanes would be better for the Knightdale bypass between I-440 and I-540.
like others say, it will be another 30 years before the project can be done again, like when they built I-40 west of Durham, it was 4 lanes, and sprjus4 said it should have been built as 6 lanes.
NCDOT seeking federal funding for proposed I-87 (https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html)
QuoteThe N.C. Department of Transportation has asked the federal government for funding to complete Interstate 87 and to install broadband along the over 200-mile roadway from Virginia to Raleigh.
Future I-87 will also serve as an interstate connection between the Port of Virginia and I-95.
NC East Alliance Director Vann Rogerson, who leads one group pushing for the highway, said that NCDOT submitted an Infrastructure For Rebuilding America Grant application last week seeking federal funding for the project that started with a $1 billion price tag.
"This is a grand opportunity for us to get funding," Rogerson said. "We are keeping our fingers crossed.''
Rogerson said the state should know in about five months if INFRA funding will be available for the interstate project. He said the alliance is seeking letters of support for it from local governments, state and federal elected officials and business leaders in North Carolina and Virginia.
"The Port of Virginia needs a southern route out to Interstate 95 for that flow of materials," Rogerson said. "We have support letters from the Port of Virginia. Obviously, there are a lot of people interested in getting this corridor developed."
During the 2020 presidential campaign, President Joe Biden said he would pursue massive spending on infrastructure projects if elected. Following up on that priority, his administration will soon unveil a $4 trillion plan that's expected to allocate money for roads, bridges rail lines, water and sewer systems, improvements to the power grid and to expand broadband access.
Rogerson said the funds DOT are seeking are from a federal infrastructure grant.
"Back in January, we started focusing in a more united way to see if there were some rural federal infrastructure monies that we could get assigned since the Biden Administration was coming in," he said. "We feel this is a good opportunity because the federal government is going to spend money on infrastructure projects."
The grant application is also seeking to install fiber optic cable along the entire length of the future I-87 corridor, as well as the extension of U.S. 64 from Williamston to Whalebone in Dare County.
The broadband would allow NCDOT to install state-of-the-art wind and flood monitoring systems and could be the "backbone" of expanding internet access in rural counties along I-87.
"They are going to have some excess capacity there that can be used by communities," Rogerson said. "I believe they are going to have some dark fiber as a part of that.'' Dark fiber is unused optical fiber.
Once completed, I-87 is expected to generate economic development all along the corridor, with Camden and Pasquotank counties especially benefiting because of their close proximity to the Port of Virginia.
"There are so many companies looking to be 30 minutes or an hour from an interstate and that corridor is just critical for us," Rogerson said. "
The grant application comes just three months after participants at a virtual work session on I-87 were told that many parts of the project were pushed back by several years because of NCDOT budget shortfalls.
NCDOT has faced several financial challenges that started with Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and continued with Hurricane Florence in 2018, causing the agency to spend more than $400 million to repair damage caused by the two storms.
A decrease in driving during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a drop of gas tax revenue which further hurt NCDOT's finances.
I hope Interstate 87 gets that funding and gets upgraded so the designation can be extended further east (and ultimately north). At 12.9 miles, Interstate 87 is, at present, dinky.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 08:56:06 AM
NCDOT seeking federal funding for proposed I-87 (https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html)
QuoteThe N.C. Department of Transportation has asked the federal government for funding to complete Interstate 87 and to install broadband along the over 200-mile roadway from Virginia to Raleigh.
Future I-87 will also serve as an interstate connection between the Port of Virginia and I-95.
NC East Alliance Director Vann Rogerson, who leads one group pushing for the highway, said that NCDOT submitted an Infrastructure For Rebuilding America Grant application last week seeking federal funding for the project that started with a $1 billion price tag.
"This is a grand opportunity for us to get funding," Rogerson said. "We are keeping our fingers crossed.''
Rogerson said the state should know in about five months if INFRA funding will be available for the interstate project. He said the alliance is seeking letters of support for it from local governments, state and federal elected officials and business leaders in North Carolina and Virginia.
"The Port of Virginia needs a southern route out to Interstate 95 for that flow of materials," Rogerson said. "We have support letters from the Port of Virginia. Obviously, there are a lot of people interested in getting this corridor developed."
During the 2020 presidential campaign, President Joe Biden said he would pursue massive spending on infrastructure projects if elected. Following up on that priority, his administration will soon unveil a $4 trillion plan that's expected to allocate money for roads, bridges rail lines, water and sewer systems, improvements to the power grid and to expand broadband access.
Rogerson said the funds DOT are seeking are from a federal infrastructure grant.
"Back in January, we started focusing in a more united way to see if there were some rural federal infrastructure monies that we could get assigned since the Biden Administration was coming in," he said. "We feel this is a good opportunity because the federal government is going to spend money on infrastructure projects."
The grant application is also seeking to install fiber optic cable along the entire length of the future I-87 corridor, as well as the extension of U.S. 64 from Williamston to Whalebone in Dare County.
The broadband would allow NCDOT to install state-of-the-art wind and flood monitoring systems and could be the "backbone" of expanding internet access in rural counties along I-87.
"They are going to have some excess capacity there that can be used by communities," Rogerson said. "I believe they are going to have some dark fiber as a part of that.'' Dark fiber is unused optical fiber.
Once completed, I-87 is expected to generate economic development all along the corridor, with Camden and Pasquotank counties especially benefiting because of their close proximity to the Port of Virginia.
"There are so many companies looking to be 30 minutes or an hour from an interstate and that corridor is just critical for us," Rogerson said. "
The grant application comes just three months after participants at a virtual work session on I-87 were told that many parts of the project were pushed back by several years because of NCDOT budget shortfalls.
NCDOT has faced several financial challenges that started with Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and continued with Hurricane Florence in 2018, causing the agency to spend more than $400 million to repair damage caused by the two storms.
A decrease in driving during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a drop of gas tax revenue which further hurt NCDOT's finances.
Biden's $2 trillion bill will hope to get these projects back on track.
Somewhat amusing that the article makes no mention of how the Map Act fiasco has also hit NCDOT's pocketbook...
I'd much rather see an INFRA grant for I-795 at the moment. Wayne County could really use a second N/S Neuse River crossing, and that new alignment would also relieve the congestion in Mar-Mac, which would be a big help.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 08:56:06 AM
NCDOT seeking federal funding for proposed I-87 (https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html)
QuoteThe N.C. Department of Transportation has asked the federal government for funding to complete Interstate 87 and to install broadband along the over 200-mile roadway from Virginia to Raleigh.
Future I-87 will also serve as an interstate connection between the Port of Virginia and I-95.
NC East Alliance Director Vann Rogerson, who leads one group pushing for the highway, said that NCDOT submitted an Infrastructure For Rebuilding America Grant application last week seeking federal funding for the project that started with a $1 billion price tag.
"This is a grand opportunity for us to get funding," Rogerson said. "We are keeping our fingers crossed.''
Rogerson said the state should know in about five months if INFRA funding will be available for the interstate project. He said the alliance is seeking letters of support for it from local governments, state and federal elected officials and business leaders in North Carolina and Virginia.
"The Port of Virginia needs a southern route out to Interstate 95 for that flow of materials," Rogerson said. "We have support letters from the Port of Virginia. Obviously, there are a lot of people interested in getting this corridor developed."
During the 2020 presidential campaign, President Joe Biden said he would pursue massive spending on infrastructure projects if elected. Following up on that priority, his administration will soon unveil a $4 trillion plan that's expected to allocate money for roads, bridges rail lines, water and sewer systems, improvements to the power grid and to expand broadband access.
Rogerson said the funds DOT are seeking are from a federal infrastructure grant.
"Back in January, we started focusing in a more united way to see if there were some rural federal infrastructure monies that we could get assigned since the Biden Administration was coming in," he said. "We feel this is a good opportunity because the federal government is going to spend money on infrastructure projects."
The grant application is also seeking to install fiber optic cable along the entire length of the future I-87 corridor, as well as the extension of U.S. 64 from Williamston to Whalebone in Dare County.
The broadband would allow NCDOT to install state-of-the-art wind and flood monitoring systems and could be the "backbone" of expanding internet access in rural counties along I-87.
"They are going to have some excess capacity there that can be used by communities," Rogerson said. "I believe they are going to have some dark fiber as a part of that.'' Dark fiber is unused optical fiber.
Once completed, I-87 is expected to generate economic development all along the corridor, with Camden and Pasquotank counties especially benefiting because of their close proximity to the Port of Virginia.
"There are so many companies looking to be 30 minutes or an hour from an interstate and that corridor is just critical for us," Rogerson said. "
The grant application comes just three months after participants at a virtual work session on I-87 were told that many parts of the project were pushed back by several years because of NCDOT budget shortfalls.
NCDOT has faced several financial challenges that started with Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and continued with Hurricane Florence in 2018, causing the agency to spend more than $400 million to repair damage caused by the two storms.
A decrease in driving during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a drop of gas tax revenue which further hurt NCDOT's finances.
I hope the federal government says "NO". NC has to finish other interstates first (I-26 Connector, I-42, I-73/I-74, I-795 extension, etc). I-87 isn't even that important.
Quote from: Strider on April 01, 2021, 02:55:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 08:56:06 AM
NCDOT seeking federal funding for proposed I-87 (https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html)
QuoteThe N.C. Department of Transportation has asked the federal government for funding to complete Interstate 87 and to install broadband along the over 200-mile roadway from Virginia to Raleigh.
Future I-87 will also serve as an interstate connection between the Port of Virginia and I-95.
NC East Alliance Director Vann Rogerson, who leads one group pushing for the highway, said that NCDOT submitted an Infrastructure For Rebuilding America Grant application last week seeking federal funding for the project that started with a $1 billion price tag.
"This is a grand opportunity for us to get funding," Rogerson said. "We are keeping our fingers crossed.''
Rogerson said the state should know in about five months if INFRA funding will be available for the interstate project. He said the alliance is seeking letters of support for it from local governments, state and federal elected officials and business leaders in North Carolina and Virginia.
"The Port of Virginia needs a southern route out to Interstate 95 for that flow of materials," Rogerson said. "We have support letters from the Port of Virginia. Obviously, there are a lot of people interested in getting this corridor developed."
During the 2020 presidential campaign, President Joe Biden said he would pursue massive spending on infrastructure projects if elected. Following up on that priority, his administration will soon unveil a $4 trillion plan that's expected to allocate money for roads, bridges rail lines, water and sewer systems, improvements to the power grid and to expand broadband access.
Rogerson said the funds DOT are seeking are from a federal infrastructure grant.
"Back in January, we started focusing in a more united way to see if there were some rural federal infrastructure monies that we could get assigned since the Biden Administration was coming in," he said. "We feel this is a good opportunity because the federal government is going to spend money on infrastructure projects."
The grant application is also seeking to install fiber optic cable along the entire length of the future I-87 corridor, as well as the extension of U.S. 64 from Williamston to Whalebone in Dare County.
The broadband would allow NCDOT to install state-of-the-art wind and flood monitoring systems and could be the "backbone" of expanding internet access in rural counties along I-87.
"They are going to have some excess capacity there that can be used by communities," Rogerson said. "I believe they are going to have some dark fiber as a part of that.'' Dark fiber is unused optical fiber.
Once completed, I-87 is expected to generate economic development all along the corridor, with Camden and Pasquotank counties especially benefiting because of their close proximity to the Port of Virginia.
"There are so many companies looking to be 30 minutes or an hour from an interstate and that corridor is just critical for us," Rogerson said. "
The grant application comes just three months after participants at a virtual work session on I-87 were told that many parts of the project were pushed back by several years because of NCDOT budget shortfalls.
NCDOT has faced several financial challenges that started with Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and continued with Hurricane Florence in 2018, causing the agency to spend more than $400 million to repair damage caused by the two storms.
A decrease in driving during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a drop of gas tax revenue which further hurt NCDOT's finances.
I hope the federal government says "NO". NC has to finish other interstates first (I-26 Connector, I-42, I-73/I-74, I-795 extension, etc). I-87 isn't even that important.
Or completing 540. And widening major arterials.
"Closed mouths don't get fed" . Where are the politicians and advocacy groups pushing for their respective projects? I applaud the I-87 proponents for getting out in front on this potential funding source.
I want to see I-785 finished personally! It's so close to becoming a reality!
Quote from: tjcreasy on April 01, 2021, 05:11:10 PM
"Closed mouths don't get fed" . Where are the politicians and advocacy groups pushing for their respective projects? I applaud the I-87 proponents for getting out in front on this potential funding source.
Agreed. One of the problems with the corridor is that while North Carolina will be bearing most of the cost, the benefits to any major population center lie north of the border in Hampton Roads, specifically in regards to an interstate highway corridor connecting to I-95 and other southern population centers. From the point of view of the federal government, tying Hampton Roads, I-95, and Raleigh (two metros of over 2 million population and primary north-south east coast highway) together may seem more important than North Carolina sees it. For North Carolina specifically, I-87 isn't doing much directly for their state as much as I-42, I-795, I-73, or other in state corridors are that connecting internal population centers, which is why it's a lower priority for them. The main advocacy efforts are from those eastern counties which would benefit the most having an interstate highway connecting two major metropolitan areas coming through their county. There's support from Hampton Roads as well, but that's not going to do much in the way of pushing North Carolina to do work.
With all of this though, I still believe that I-87 has a higher chance of getting complete before VDOT turns a shovel of dirt on upgrading the US-58 corridor. There's higher gains for that type of project, but virtually no interest to Virginia due to its cost and lack of history at developing interstate corridors.
Quote
I want to see I-785 finished personally! It's so close to becoming a reality!
Agreed, and my points above as to why I-87 is a lower priority for North Carolina may apply here to - it's not doing as much for internal population centers. Though this project certainly is almost complete, there's only one small segment that needs to be upgraded. I drove the corridor last year between Danville and Greensboro and it almost felt like a wash driving through that arterial segment, not much work would be involved to fully upgrade it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 08:27:39 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on April 01, 2021, 05:11:10 PM
"Closed mouths don't get fed" . Where are the politicians and advocacy groups pushing for their respective projects? I applaud the I-87 proponents for getting out in front on this potential funding source.
Agreed. One of the problems with the corridor is that while North Carolina will be bearing most of the cost, the benefits to any major population center lie north of the border in Hampton Roads, specifically in regards to an interstate highway corridor connecting to I-95 and other southern population centers. From the point of view of the federal government, tying Hampton Roads, I-95, and Raleigh (two metros of over 2 million population and primary north-south east coast highway) together may seem more important than North Carolina sees it. For North Carolina specifically, I-87 isn't doing much directly for their state as much as I-42, I-795, I-73, or other in state corridors are that connecting internal population centers, which is why it's a lower priority for them. The main advocacy efforts are from those eastern counties which would benefit the most having an interstate highway connecting two major metropolitan areas coming through their county. There's support from Hampton Roads as well, but that's not going to do much in the way of pushing North Carolina to do work.
With all of this though, I still believe that I-87 has a higher chance of getting complete before VDOT turns a shovel of dirt on upgrading the US-58 corridor. There's higher gains for that type of project, but virtually no interest to Virginia due to its cost and lack of history at developing interstate corridors.
Quote
I want to see I-785 finished personally! It's so close to becoming a reality!
Agreed, and my points above as to why I-87 is a lower priority for North Carolina may apply here to - it's not doing as much for internal population centers. Though this project certainly is almost complete, there's only one small segment that needs to be upgraded. I drove the corridor last year between Danville and Greensboro and it almost felt like a wash driving through that arterial segment, not much work would be involved to fully upgrade it.
I drive it at least 5 times a year. It just looks like it could be an interstate with just the tiniest bit of work...but it won't til at least 2030.
Quote from: tjcreasy on April 01, 2021, 05:11:10 PM
"Closed mouths don't get fed" . Where are the politicians and advocacy groups pushing for their respective projects? I applaud the I-87 proponents for getting out in front on this potential funding source.
I want to see I-785 finished personally! It's so close to becoming a reality!
New quote added to my memory. For people knowing what tjcreasy said, Closed mouths don't get fed is an idiomatic phrase that means if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it.
Quote from: ahj2000 on April 02, 2021, 04:09:55 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 08:27:39 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on April 01, 2021, 05:11:10 PM
"Closed mouths don't get fed" . Where are the politicians and advocacy groups pushing for their respective projects? I applaud the I-87 proponents for getting out in front on this potential funding source.
Agreed. One of the problems with the corridor is that while North Carolina will be bearing most of the cost, the benefits to any major population center lie north of the border in Hampton Roads, specifically in regards to an interstate highway corridor connecting to I-95 and other southern population centers. From the point of view of the federal government, tying Hampton Roads, I-95, and Raleigh (two metros of over 2 million population and primary north-south east coast highway) together may seem more important than North Carolina sees it. For North Carolina specifically, I-87 isn't doing much directly for their state as much as I-42, I-795, I-73, or other in state corridors are that connecting internal population centers, which is why it's a lower priority for them. The main advocacy efforts are from those eastern counties which would benefit the most having an interstate highway connecting two major metropolitan areas coming through their county. There's support from Hampton Roads as well, but that's not going to do much in the way of pushing North Carolina to do work.
With all of this though, I still believe that I-87 has a higher chance of getting complete before VDOT turns a shovel of dirt on upgrading the US-58 corridor. There's higher gains for that type of project, but virtually no interest to Virginia due to its cost and lack of history at developing interstate corridors.
Quote
I want to see I-785 finished personally! It's so close to becoming a reality!
Agreed, and my points above as to why I-87 is a lower priority for North Carolina may apply here to - it's not doing as much for internal population centers. Though this project certainly is almost complete, there's only one small segment that needs to be upgraded. I drove the corridor last year between Danville and Greensboro and it almost felt like a wash driving through that arterial segment, not much work would be involved to fully upgrade it.
I drive it at least 5 times a year. It just looks like it could be an interstate with just the tiniest bit of work...but it won't til at least 2030.
Exactly. It is moved because of "funding difficulties". I understood that... until they requested a FEDERAL funding for I-87 alone. Like others mentioned, it doesn't do much for that part of the state... They should have requested the funding to complete I-785, I-26, I-42, I-73 and I-74. They can go back to I-87 once the others are finished.
Quote from: Strider on April 02, 2021, 09:39:55 PM
I understood that... until they requested a FEDERAL funding for I-87 alone. Like others mentioned, it doesn't do much for that part of the state...
Those other corridors have a higher chance of receiving in state funding than an isolated, lengthy corridor that mainly has benefits outside of North Carolina (i.e. Hampton Roads), such as I-87 does. Federal funding is likely the only route that corridor will ever get built within a reasonable amount of time.
Not to mention, like mentioned above, you can't blame those eastern counties for lobbying NCDOT for their wish list, you can only blame the counties on those other corridors for
not lobbying and getting their wish lists pushed through.
And to be fair, I-42 (along with I-95 widening) and the US-74 corridor have received a share of federal funding through grants in the past few years.
I-95 is by far the only NC project deserving of that infrastructure plan.
I mean look at the dire need projects like a new tunnel under the Hudson to expand and relieve the 100+ existing tunnel that the entire Northeast relies on. It's damaged from Sandy and on a single hiccup affects hundreds of thousands of commuters and has a ripple effect much like air travel delays.
It could be finished by now and for a bargain of what it will now cost due to Christie and Trump. For Trump to have delayed something so important to the TriState because of petty politics...
Or resurrecting the abandoned S line in Virginia that will connect NC's successful railroad to the Northeast Corridor with higher-speed rail service. That 100 miles is estimated to cost $4 billion but that seems far better use of that money than I-87 or other NC highway projects if you ask me.
the only important part for I-87 is widening the part between Wendell and Zebulon.
Personally, I would upgrade the existing segments of the US 64 freeway to Interstate Standards before making the US 17 corridor from Williamston-to-Norfolk completely freeway. Or should it be vice versa?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2021, 08:28:03 PM
Personally, I would upgrade the existing segments of the US 64 freeway to Interstate Standards before making the US 17 corridor from Williamston-to-Norfolk completely freeway. Or should it be vice versa?
US-64 to Williamston should be first. Going east of Tarboro, US-64 already meets interstate standards so don't really need to do anything there.
US-64 in Rocky Mount, they were planning to raise the speed limit to 70 through by increasing the radius of the interchanges. That part would need some work done.
If you went with US-17 first, you would at least establish a full freeway grade corridor between Norfolk and Raleigh. Then you can go back and upgrade the remaining substandard freeway segments. But I believe the official plan is the opposite, which will only push US-17, the unimproved portion, back longer.
In the meantime, NCDOT could be proactive and renumber NC 87 to NC 187.
.
That opens up extending I-87 southward along I-40 to US 1 and then down along current freeway grade.... and end for now at US 421. At least that would make it more south on a 'north south' route.
Quote from: sturmde on April 06, 2021, 03:59:39 PM
In the meantime, NCDOT could be proactive and renumber NC 87 to NC 187.
.
That opens up extending I-87 southward along I-40 to US 1 and then down along current freeway grade.... and end for now at US 421. At least that would make it more south on a 'north south' route.
NC 87 is a very important statewide route. Something has got to give with NC 87 and US 74. Hate to see it go, hopefully it can receive a US Highway designation like US 317? An I-87 extension to Sanford in the short term makes sense.
Quote from: sturmde on April 06, 2021, 03:59:39 PM
In the meantime, NCDOT could be proactive and renumber NC 87 to NC 187.
.
That opens up extending I-87 southward along I-40 to US 1 and then down along current freeway grade.... and end for now at US 421. At least that would make it more south on a 'north south' route.
If they didn't renumber NC 73 by now it seems unlikely they will renumber NC 42 or NC 87.
NC was still renumbering state routes to accommodate interstate numbering as late as the 1970s - NC 277 gone in 1979 and NC 195 changed to match Virginia renumbering their VA 195 in 1975.
Quote from: snowc on April 02, 2021, 12:05:56 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on April 01, 2021, 05:11:10 PM
"Closed mouths don't get fed" . Where are the politicians and advocacy groups pushing for their respective projects? I applaud the I-87 proponents for getting out in front on this potential funding source.
I want to see I-785 finished personally! It's so close to becoming a reality!
New quote added to my memory. For people knowing what tjcreasy said, Closed mouths don't get fed is an idiomatic phrase that means if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it.
It doesn't mean that to me at all. I interpret it to mean, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." In order words, you've got to voice your wants and needs because you won't get anything remaining silent.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 05, 2021, 09:16:53 PM
If you went with US-17 first, you would at least establish a full freeway grade corridor between Norfolk and Raleigh. Then you can go back and upgrade the remaining substandard freeway segments. But I believe the official plan is the opposite, which will only push US-17, the unimproved portion, back longer.
I would love to know some traffic counts between Raleigh and the Norfolk region, which now has a smaller CSA population than Raleigh-Durham.
I know it's a major port and Navy installation, however i don't see industries in the Triangle that are huge receivers of components coming off boats at ports.
I'm going to assail the notion that NC's rural Northeastern Counties are significantly dead enough to have diverted Hampton Road's major lifelines and associations away from Raleigh making it far lessor important to Virginia's coast than Richmond and points North.
It's not just Raleigh-Durham, it's I-95 South that's a major driver for Hampton Roads.
There's various routes that connect Norfolk to I-95 and Raleigh-Durham today, with the main being US-58, which does not go through Eastern NC but rather reaches I-95 in Virginia, along with others. A single interstate highway corridor would likely attract traffic from all routes onto it. I'd estimate volumes to be anywhere from 15,000 to 20,000 AADT, though it's hard to say with certainty. These numbers will inevitably grow in the future as well.
NCDOT estimates traffic volumes will be around 15,000 AADT on the most rural portions of US-17 then up to 30,000 AADT on the high end between Norfolk and Elizabeth City, which would cover Virginia's portion of the corridor.
While the lower volumes do make such a project a lower priority, it's still an important long range goal to have an interstate highway connection between two metros of over a million population, and in general Norfolk to the south. It's a missing link in the system. I-64 provides a northwestern connection while there's a lack of anything to the southwest.
Once the freeway starts getting closer towards the North Carolina/Virginia border along the US 17 portion of future Interstate 87, does anyone predict upgrading existing US 17 there and on the Virginia side of the proposed Interstate would stir up public resistance and NIMBYism to upgrading 17 (of course, that assumes that Interstate 87 one day makes it that far)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2021, 09:07:14 PM
Once the freeway starts getting closer towards the North Carolina/Virginia border along the US 17 portion of future Interstate 87, does anyone predict upgrading existing US 17 there and on the Virginia side of the proposed Interstate would stir up public resistance and NIMBYism to upgrading 17 (of course, that assumes that Interstate 87 one day makes it that far)?
I imagine there may be some resistance on the Virginia side, though I don't imagine any major pushback, especially if improvements are kept rural in nature - which largely will considering upgrades will consist of access control and rural interchanges. The fact the highway itself in both states is already mostly limited access in regards to private connections, helps significantly. It's simply a matter of addressing existing rural intersections. The main opposition is centered around new developments out in the area.
VDOT will likely not pursue upgrades on the northern side of the border until either the Elizabeth City - Virginia portion is complete, or until the vast majority of the corridor is upgraded to the point the Virginia portion sticks out like a sore thumb on what is otherwise an unobstructed 70 mph corridor to Raleigh once entering North Carolina.
where US-17 is near Willimaston, it floods easily in that area. Guess it's time to make it similar to the Washington Bypass of how it was built. South of Cedar Landing Rd.
Quote from: architect77 on April 13, 2021, 04:38:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 05, 2021, 09:16:53 PM
If you went with US-17 first, you would at least establish a full freeway grade corridor between Norfolk and Raleigh. Then you can go back and upgrade the remaining substandard freeway segments. But I believe the official plan is the opposite, which will only push US-17, the unimproved portion, back longer.
I would love to know some traffic counts between Raleigh and the Norfolk region, which now has a smaller CSA population than Raleigh-Durham.
I know it's a major port and Navy installation, however i don't see industries in the Triangle that are huge receivers of components coming off boats at ports.
I'm going to assail the notion that NC's rural Northeastern Counties are significantly dead enough to have diverted Hampton Road's major lifelines and associations away from Raleigh making it far lessor important to Virginia's coast than Richmond and points North.
There are plenty of electronic manufacturers in the Triangle; enhanced access to any port that might be offloading semiconductors and other electronic components from East Asia (with Indonesia and Taiwan being the more prolific suppliers of such, with American companies such as Texas Instruments and Analog Devices having production plants in those places) would certainly make the supply chain (which has definitely been recently damaged/interrupted by COVID) a bit less convoluted. Both I-87 and I-42, once their respective ports have been adequately dredged for Panamax-size vessels, would function as direct conduits from port to factory for small-lot (one or two containers at a time) shipments loaded on trucks rather than long-distance container trains.
Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2021, 05:23:46 AM
Quote from: architect77 on April 13, 2021, 04:38:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 05, 2021, 09:16:53 PM
If you went with US-17 first, you would at least establish a full freeway grade corridor between Norfolk and Raleigh. Then you can go back and upgrade the remaining substandard freeway segments. But I believe the official plan is the opposite, which will only push US-17, the unimproved portion, back longer.
I would love to know some traffic counts between Raleigh and the Norfolk region, which now has a smaller CSA population than Raleigh-Durham.
I know it's a major port and Navy installation, however i don't see industries in the Triangle that are huge receivers of components coming off boats at ports.
I'm going to assail the notion that NC's rural Northeastern Counties are significantly dead enough to have diverted Hampton Road's major lifelines and associations away from Raleigh making it far lessor important to Virginia's coast than Richmond and points North.
There are plenty of electronic manufacturers in the Triangle; enhanced access to any port that might be offloading semiconductors and other electronic components from East Asia (with Indonesia and Taiwan being the more prolific suppliers of such, with American companies such as Texas Instruments and Analog Devices having production plants in those places) would certainly make the supply chain (which has definitely been recently damaged/interrupted by COVID) a bit less convoluted. Both I-87 and I-42, once their respective ports have been adequately dredged for Panamax-size vessels, would function as direct conduits from port to factory for small-lot (one or two containers at a time) shipments loaded on trucks rather than long-distance container trains.
I could be mistaken but I wouldn't think that the Morehead City Port would even plan to accommodate Panamex Ships. It's a small port, so is Wilmington compared to say Savannah which is now 3rd busiest in the country I believe. I don't know if 7-10 East Coast ports need to have that capability.
Here's an interesting fact about ships arriving at ports. While still out in the ocean, local port operators boat out to the ship and do all the driving in and around the port facility. They know the harbor the best and the long distance crews don't so they don't navigate the ships into any ports.
I never would have guessed that.
The Port of Virginia is the 3rd largest on the East Coast, behind the Port of Savannah and Port of New York/New Jersey.
Quote from: architect77 on April 17, 2021, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2021, 05:23:46 AM
Quote from: architect77 on April 13, 2021, 04:38:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 05, 2021, 09:16:53 PM
If you went with US-17 first, you would at least establish a full freeway grade corridor between Norfolk and Raleigh. Then you can go back and upgrade the remaining substandard freeway segments. But I believe the official plan is the opposite, which will only push US-17, the unimproved portion, back longer.
I would love to know some traffic counts between Raleigh and the Norfolk region, which now has a smaller CSA population than Raleigh-Durham.
I know it's a major port and Navy installation, however i don't see industries in the Triangle that are huge receivers of components coming off boats at ports.
I'm going to assail the notion that NC's rural Northeastern Counties are significantly dead enough to have diverted Hampton Road's major lifelines and associations away from Raleigh making it far lessor important to Virginia's coast than Richmond and points North.
There are plenty of electronic manufacturers in the Triangle; enhanced access to any port that might be offloading semiconductors and other electronic components from East Asia (with Indonesia and Taiwan being the more prolific suppliers of such, with American companies such as Texas Instruments and Analog Devices having production plants in those places) would certainly make the supply chain (which has definitely been recently damaged/interrupted by COVID) a bit less convoluted. Both I-87 and I-42, once their respective ports have been adequately dredged for Panamax-size vessels, would function as direct conduits from port to factory for small-lot (one or two containers at a time) shipments loaded on trucks rather than long-distance container trains.
I could be mistaken but I wouldn't think that the Morehead City Port would even plan to accommodate Panamex Ships. It's a small port, so is Wilmington compared to say Savannah which is now 3rd busiest in the country I believe. I don't know if 7-10 East Coast ports need to have that capability.
Here's an interesting fact about ships arriving at ports. While still out in the ocean, local port operators boat out to the ship and do all the driving in and around the port facility. They know the harbor the best and the long distance crews don't so they don't navigate the ships into any ports.
I never would have guessed that.
While Morehead is presently a small port (
and city), it
is located at the east end of the North Carolina State Railroad (operated by NS), which was was built to be a high-capacity line capable of handling large volumes of cargo from that port to the NS main trunk in Greensboro. OTOH, Wilmington, the in-state competition in regard to a port, is primarily CSX territory (NS' regional rival), so both NS and the State of North Carolina have something to gain by enhancing the potential for shippers to utilize Morehead. That would involve dredging the port channel to accommodate the larger vessels that would be traversing the enlarged Panama Canal (the whole point of
that exercise!).
Quote from: sparker on April 17, 2021, 07:15:48 PM
While Morehead is presently a small port (and city), it is located at the east end of the North Carolina State Railroad (operated by NS), which was was built to be a high-capacity line capable of handling large volumes of cargo from that port to the NS main trunk in Greensboro. OTOH, Wilmington, the in-state competition in regard to a port, is primarily CSX territory (NS' regional rival), so both NS and the State of North Carolina have something to gain by enhancing the potential for shippers to utilize Morehead. That would involve dredging the port channel to accommodate the larger vessels that would be traversing the enlarged Panama Canal (the whole point of that exercise!).
The big issue with increasing rail traffic through Morehead, is the main line runs right down the middle of US 70 for a couple miles. Present traffic patterns see a few trains per week, adding to that has potential to create serious traffic problems, as there isn't really a good alt route to avoid the railroad.
Quote from: architect77 on April 17, 2021, 05:06:40 PM
Here's an interesting fact about ships arriving at ports. While still out in the ocean, local port operators boat out to the ship and do all the driving in and around the port facility. They know the harbor the best and the long distance crews don't so they don't navigate the ships into any ports.
I never would have guessed that.
Yes, we call them Harbor Pilots. The Navy uses them too.
Quote from: sparker on April 17, 2021, 07:15:48 PM
While Morehead is presently a small port (and city), it is located at the east end of the North Carolina State Railroad (operated by NS), which was was built to be a high-capacity line capable of handling large volumes of cargo from that port to the NS main trunk in Greensboro. OTOH, Wilmington, the in-state competition in regard to a port, is primarily CSX territory (NS' regional rival), so both NS and the State of North Carolina have something to gain by enhancing the potential for shippers to utilize Morehead. That would involve dredging the port channel to accommodate the larger vessels that would be traversing the enlarged Panama Canal (the whole point of that exercise!).
Quote from: fillup420 on April 18, 2021, 07:46:42 AM
The big issue with increasing rail traffic through Morehead, is the main line runs right down the middle of US 70 for a couple miles. Present traffic patterns see a few trains per week, adding to that has potential to create serious traffic problems, as there isn't really a good alt route to avoid the railroad.
Back when I was working on the Triangle Transit (then TTA) Regional Rail Project, there was a surge in rail traffic to the Port of Morehead City both inbound and outbound (probably due to the signficant number of rail improvements over the North Carolina Rail Road corridor, but I'm not sure). Anyhow, the North Carolina State Ports Authority announced a new project to build a monster port terminal in Southport. That gave Norfolk Southern some access to the Port of Wilmington over CSX trackage, and port traffic on Norfolk Southern out of Morehead City seemed to drop off after that. But the monster port terminal project faced stiff opposition and was eventually cancelled. That project would have given Norfolk Southern full access to the new port facility.
Leap forward to last year. In April 2020, NCSPA completed a major dredging of the turning basin for the Port of Wilmington that will allow UCLV ships (larger than Panamax) to access the port terminal. But if I'm correct, Norfolk Southern only gets limited rail access to the Port of Wilmington. But for that matter, I don't think that CSX has any access to the Port of Morehead City.
[Full disclosure: I'm an original employee of CSX who left in the early days, but still might benefit from this situation. For more personal reasons, I prefer to stay neutral in such discussions].
I know NC was making moves to promote the Port of Wilmington as a big cargo destination for post-Panamax ships since it was nearly ready to accept them. This was in an attempt to steal market share from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. That window has since closed though due to PANYNJ completing dredging and raising the Bayonne Bridge to allow bigger vessels into Newark Bay.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2021, 03:45:53 PM
I know NC was making moves to promote the Port of Wilmington as a big cargo destination for post-Panamax ships since it was nearly ready to accept them. This was in an attempt to steal market share from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. That window has since closed though due to PANYNJ completing dredging and raising the Bayonne Bridge to allow bigger vessels into Newark Bay.
FWIW, here is what the Port of Wilmington says about itself:
"Our capability can enhance your profitability. For starters, the Port of Wilmington is strategically located on the East Coast of the United States within 700 miles of more than 70% of the U.S. industrial base. Recent and ongoing improvements to regional and national highway networks make surface transportation supporting the Port of Wilmington superior to neighboring ports. And CSX Transportation provides intermodal rail service with best-in-class transit times, as well as daily service for boxcar, tanker and general cargo services.
"The Port of Wilmington is one of few Southern ports with readily available berths and storage areas for containers and general cargo. Specifically, it offers terminal facilities serving container, bulk, breakbulk, and ro-ro operations. It offers a deep 42-foot navigational channel, nine berths with 6,768 feet of wharf frontage, four post-Panamax container cranes and three neo-Panamax container cranes. Modern transit and warehouse facilities and the latest in cargo management technology provide a broad platform for supporting international trade to the fast-growing Southeast U.S. market."
Source: https://ncports.com/port-facilities/port-of-wilmington/
Quote from: fillup420 on April 18, 2021, 07:46:42 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 17, 2021, 07:15:48 PM
While Morehead is presently a small port (and city), it is located at the east end of the North Carolina State Railroad (operated by NS), which was was built to be a high-capacity line capable of handling large volumes of cargo from that port to the NS main trunk in Greensboro. OTOH, Wilmington, the in-state competition in regard to a port, is primarily CSX territory (NS' regional rival), so both NS and the State of North Carolina have something to gain by enhancing the potential for shippers to utilize Morehead. That would involve dredging the port channel to accommodate the larger vessels that would be traversing the enlarged Panama Canal (the whole point of that exercise!).
The big issue with increasing rail traffic through Morehead, is the main line runs right down the middle of US 70 for a couple miles. Present traffic patterns see a few trains per week, adding to that has potential to create serious traffic problems, as there isn't really a good alt route to avoid the railroad.
Question: are the tracks right in the middle of a traffic or center turn lane, or are they in a median? If the former, that
is an obvious recipe for problems; in a median, RR traffic can be largely dealt with by traffic signals and timing (cf. the UP main through Salem, OR). Nevertheless, it's likely that the tracks would be relocated after the port is dredged and the cargo volume increases.
^^^^^^^
OK- looked at GSV for Morehead; the tracks are isolated in the median of US 70. Not much area available to deal with here -- but a solution would be to shift the overall alignment for a two-way road with the RR tracks to the outside rather than down the middle -- and to raise or lower (depending upon the water table there) the tracks. IIRC, I-42 is expected to terminate at the west end of Morehead rather than crossing the city, so a common project of grade separation wouldn't be forthcoming. But since Morehead won't likely be a major factor in at least the first wave of Panamax port shifting, there's sufficient time for both the NCSRR and NCDOT to work out some sort of plan -- or even select a "no build" option and keep the situation as is (at least until such time as there's locally-originated pressure to address the problem). What's on the ground today is probably adequate if any increased train movements are scheduled at night or at least in off-peak hours.
Quote from: sparker on April 17, 2021, 07:15:48 PM
While Morehead is presently a small port (and city), it is located at the east end of the North Carolina State Railroad (operated by NS), which was was built to be a high-capacity line capable of handling large volumes of cargo from that port to the NS main trunk in Greensboro. OTOH, Wilmington, the in-state competition in regard to a port, is primarily CSX territory (NS' regional rival), so both NS and the State of North Carolina have something to gain by enhancing the potential for shippers to utilize Morehead. That would involve dredging the port channel to accommodate the larger vessels that would be traversing the enlarged Panama Canal (the whole point of that exercise!).
Quote from: fillup420 on April 18, 2021, 07:46:42 AM
The big issue with increasing rail traffic through Morehead, is the main line runs right down the middle of US 70 for a couple miles. Present traffic patterns see a few trains per week, adding to that has potential to create serious traffic problems, as there isn't really a good alt route to avoid the railroad.
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2021, 07:50:03 PM
Question: are the tracks right in the middle of a traffic or center turn lane, or are they in a median? If the former, that is an obvious recipe for problems; in a median, RR traffic can be largely dealt with by traffic signals and timing (cf. the UP main through Salem, OR). Nevertheless, it's likely that the tracks would be relocated after the port is dredged and the cargo volume increases.
One of the maritime issues related to the Port of Morehead City is that the Shackleford Banks and Bogue Banks shore up against the Gulf Stream, whereas further north on the Outer Banks shores up against the North Atlantic Current. The two come together off the coast of Cape Hatteras to form the North Atlantic Gyre, which locals call the "Graveyard of the Atlantic" for a reason. The sand moves constantly and ships take heed to stay far offshore in this area. It's quite a pain for even a medium size ship to negotiate Blackbeard's haunting grounds to get into Beaufort Inlet to access the Port of Morehead City. I've seen a handful of containers at the port, but it is mostly a bulk terminal plus a fair amount of military cargo. It's fun to watch them offloading tanks while eating on the Morehead waterfront.
Fun fact: Backed when Blackbeard roamed these parts, what's now called Beaufort Inlet was historically named Topsail Inlet. Not sure how the name Topsail got relocated so far south, but the inlet at the south end of Topsail Island is called "New Topsail Inlet" to avoid further confusion.
A bit upthread I'd mentioned Salem, OR as a location where a rail main line ran down a narrow street median (SE/NE 12th); that was based upon an observation the last time I was in that city in the mid-2000's. Seems that they've done a major modification job there, taking the RR line (still a single track) out of the median and moving it a bit to the right where the NB lane (it was 1+1 and the median with sidewalks on either side) originally was located. Now it's a 3-lane street, including a bidirectional center left turn lane with a sidewalk on the SB (west) side; the rail line is immediately to the right, and a paved pedestrian/bike trail to the right (east) of that. That seems to be a far better arrangement; applying such a concept to Morehead City, with greater capacity for US 70 traffic levels, wouldn't be physically problematic. Also, the UP (former SP) line through Salem hosts several passenger trains per day, since it's on the Eugene-Portland-Seattle Amtrak "Cascade" service corridor; the daily Coast Starlight does one trip per direction through Salem as well; Morehead's traffic is a few freight trains per day serving the port facility at the east side of town.
If the problematic maritime issues can be ameliorated (likely more extensive dredging at the Outer Banks), there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that once the channel into the port has been itself adequately dredged, the offload activities wouldn't increase significantly. Apparently both the state political powers that be as well as NCDOT think there's potential here; why else would I-42 exist as a serving corridor? Nevertheless, those same folks are hedging their bets with the I-87 project, since it would, again potentially, divert truck traffic from an existing major port through NE NC -- the whole purpose of the exercise.
I have spent summer vacation every year and two entire summers at Atlantic Beach/Morehead City.
In high school and college summers I water-skied near Beaufort in Taylor's Creek and have never enjoyed going through the inlet out into the ocean. It's always scary and rough with the two bodies of water's different currents.
I hope that Morehead does not become a cargo ship destination. Tourism is so important to the area and there are already marine operations going on there like all those oprey-like jets doing vertical takeoffs on Bogue Sound, etc.
All three beach regions of NC are unique and different from one another. Deep sea fishing and amateur boating in general is bigger there than either Wilmington or OBX. Anyone remember the Tall Ships Festival about 10 years ago? It's a great area that's unspoiled by big, dirty ships with their nasty bilge water releases. I want it to stay that way.
That RR track has been there in Morehead all my life even back when the area was like an outpost in the wilderness. Today's billions of dollars of vacation homes are everywhere, even along NC24 on the inland side of Bogue Sound.
There are so many ports on the East Coast. Are we forgetting that one in Charleston? It's quite big too.
Thanks for the harbor pilots definition.
I don't see the interstate 42 effort to be strongly linked to the Morehead deep water port. US70 is the main lifeline of Eastern NC and I doubt id there's another corridor so continuously developed for such a long distance. Basically the New Bern and Havelock areas have the only brief few spots without any businesses within sight and that's only true for a few minutes.
There's enough to avoid in the water now.
This project was to get some traffic off I-95 I assume. Roanoke Rapids can be a headache when driving through there.
Quote from: tolbs17 on April 23, 2021, 08:16:01 PM
This project was to get some traffic off I-95 I assume. Roanoke Rapids can be a headache when driving through there.
The whole concept of I-87, dating back to the inception of HPC #13 back in 1991, was to enhance the economic viability of NE NC by providing an alternate corridor for traffic heading south and southwest from the Hampton Roads ports. The 2016 Interstate designation was simply another step in that process; any ensuing congestion relief to the longstanding US 58/I-95 corridor would have been just a side benefit, if that. If warehouses and other job-creating enterprises crop up along the I-87 corridor once it's substantially in service, the corridor would have functionally done its job; if not, it would likely be considered something of a money pit, even though about 60% was already full freeway before the I-designation effort. Most "after-market" Interstates are similarly predicated; those that aren't were often intended to correct previously overlooked connections (i.e. I-49, I-22).
I noticed that there is no "warning" of I-87 beginning on US 64. Seems rather capricious and arbitrary.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2021, 02:45:50 PM
I noticed that there is no "warning" of I-87 beginning on US 64. Seems rather capricious and arbitrary.
It is. The designation as a whole is rather pointless.
Quote from: fillup420 on April 27, 2021, 02:49:34 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2021, 02:45:50 PM
I noticed that there is no "warning" of I-87 beginning on US 64. Seems rather capricious and arbitrary.
It is. The designation as a whole is rather pointless.
It's purely technical in nature; the signage on WB US 64 begins near Knightsdale where the more recently built -- to Interstate standards -- section begins. It echoes the previous I-495 signage, erected under the same criteria, but with the addition of I-87 trailblazing over I-440 from the I-40 junction. The value of the whole corridor is a subject that likely will be vigorously debated in this (and other) threads until either it is built or somehow deleted.
And also important to add, any value that would come from such corridor will likely not be visible until the entire interstate (i.e. upgrades along US-64 and US-17 to bring them to 70 mph interstate standards throughout) is complete between I-40 and I-64.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 03:50:37 PM
And also important to add, any value that would come from such corridor will likely not be visible until the entire interstate (i.e. upgrades along US-64 and US-17 to bring them to 70 mph interstate standards throughout) is complete between I-40 and I-64.
Like widen the interchanges in Rocky Mount. Make it more of a rural freeway design.
Quote from: tolbs17 on April 28, 2021, 08:36:27 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 03:50:37 PM
And also important to add, any value that would come from such corridor will likely not be visible until the entire interstate (i.e. upgrades along US-64 and US-17 to bring them to 70 mph interstate standards throughout) is complete between I-40 and I-64.
Like widen the interchanges in Rocky Mount. Make it more of a rural freeway design.
That's not what I'm referring to...
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 03:50:37 PM
And also important to add, any value that would come from such corridor will likely not be visible until the entire interstate (i.e. upgrades along US-64 and US-17 to bring them to 70 mph interstate standards throughout) is complete between I-40 and I-64.
I don't think there will be any noticeable benefit. Most of that corridor is already a 70mph freeway. All of the 64 portion is, save for the small section just before JCT US 17. Most of 17 is now as well, and the sections that aren't still flow pretty smoothly. I-87 is such a waste of effort for a corridor that is already more than sufficient for the traffic counts.
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/050421%20FTAC%2007%20Hampton%20Roads%20Highway%20Access%20Study.pdf
The HRTPO (Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) is planning to conduct a study in FY22 to evaluate different proposals to improve highway access from the region to the north, west, and south.
QuoteImprovements have been proposed for many of the corridors that provide access to and from Hampton Roads. Some of these improvements include widening I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg, replacing all or portions of Routes 58 and 460 with limited-access facilities, and building I-87 to and from North Carolina.
HRTPO staff will be preparing a study in FY22 to compare proposed improvements to these corridors based on the overall collective impact on the Hampton Roads region.
QuoteA. Background
The main highways linking Hampton Roads to the outside are (counterclockwise):
- US 13 North (via Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel)
- US 17 North
- I-64 West
- US 460 West
- US 58 West
- US 17 South (leading to I-87 proposed in North Carolina)
- VA 168 South
Improvements have been proposed to each of these corridors. Given limited transportation funds, the purpose of this effort is to compare these improvements using costs and benefits. Each corridor serves one or more areas outside of Hampton Roads: North, West, or South. Corridors serving the same area will be compared to each other. For example, US 13 North, US 17 North, and I-64 West all serve the North area.
B. Work Elements (WE)
Proposed work activities for FY22:
1. Identify corridors serving outside areas.
2. By area served, compare the current usage of competing highways:
o Total vehicle volume
o Truck volume
o Port truck volume
3. Compare areas by port-related origins/destinations.
4. By area served, compare current travel times for competing highways.
o Based on future scenarios of volumes, congestion, and signalization, estimate and compare future travel times for competing highways.
5. Identify planned improvements (with costs) by corridor.
6. Consider other measures, e.g. safety and economic development opportunities.
7. By area served, prioritize corridors based on the overall collective impact for our region.
Quote from: fillup420 on April 28, 2021, 11:46:20 AM
Most of that corridor is already a 70mph freeway. All of the 64 portion is, save for the small section just before JCT US 17. Most of 17 is now as well, and the sections that aren't still flow pretty smoothly.
Correct on US-64, all 98 miles are built to freeway standards with a 70 mph posted speed limit, with the exception being a small 65 mph segment through Rocky Mount, and the first 2 miles along I-440 at 60 mph.
As for US-17, it's an overstatement to say that most of US-17 has been upgraded. Of the 95 mile portion of US-17 between US-64 at Williamston and I-64 in Chesapeake, only 32 miles are built to freeway standards (Windsor Bypass, Edenton Bypass, Elizabeth City Bypass, Dominion Blvd). The remaining 63 miles are still 55 mph (60 mph between Elizabeth City and Virginia) divided highway with a significant portion between Elizabeth City and Dominion Blvd already built on a limited access right of way that would be relatively easy to upgrade.
On the grand scheme of things, around 73% of the corridor has been built out to full freeway standards. Allocating funding and building out the remainder of the 27% - either upgrading existing US-17 or constructing on new location (notably in certain areas between Williamston and Elizabeth City) - over the next 2 decades doesn't seem like an absurd goal. The finished product would be a fully limited access highway corridor between two metropolitan areas of over 2 million each that lack any interstate highway or limited access connection, along with providing Hampton Roads with a limited access connection to I-95 South, which again, does not presently exist.
It's also an improvement for the US-17 corridor itself - providing nearly 100 miles of continuous limited access highway from Hampton Roads southward. These improvements, which easily decrease travel times along the corridor by 15 or 20 minutes, combined with 4 laning the remainder of US-17 south of Williamston, freeway construction between Wilmington and Myrtle Beach, and other improvements, could make the US-17 routing more attractive heading to coastal destinations such as Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, Charleston, etc. as opposed to heading inland to I-95.
It's not a "top priority" now to upgrade US-17, but it will inevitably be built out over the coming decades, and certainly does have its potential.
I think the prison camp rd interchange being small is keeping it from meeting interstate stardards.
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:47:45 PM
I think the prison camp rd interchange being small is keeping it from meeting interstate stardards.
How?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:47:45 PM
I think the prison camp rd interchange being small is keeping it from meeting interstate stardards.
How?
The radius of the ramps being 180 feet and not 230.
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:55:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:47:45 PM
I think the prison camp rd interchange being small is keeping it from meeting interstate stardards.
How?
The radius of the ramps being 180 feet and not 230.
That doesn't prevent it from meeting interstate standards...?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 09:03:10 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:55:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:47:45 PM
I think the prison camp rd interchange being small is keeping it from meeting interstate stardards.
How?
The radius of the ramps being 180 feet and not 230.
That doesn't prevent it from meeting interstate standards...?
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf
http://prntscr.com/12g5hsu
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 09:03:10 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:55:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:47:45 PM
I think the prison camp rd interchange being small is keeping it from meeting interstate stardards.
How?
The radius of the ramps being 180 feet and not 230.
That doesn't prevent it from meeting interstate standards...?
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf
http://prntscr.com/12g5hsu
None of those "ramp radius" improvements are required to bring the highway to interstate standards. They are merely safety improvement projects that go beyond the immediate scope of upgrading to interstate standards. To be honest, how many issues have occurred at that particular interchange that warrant the construction of such improvements? It appears to be a low volume rural interchange with adequate signage for a 25 mph advisory speed. I'm not against improvements if they are warranted and can be done at a low cost, but just merely a consideration. That study evaluated options to bring all loops to a 230 foot radius which is the ideal standard for a 70 mph highway per NCDOT's recommendations.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 09:08:23 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 09:03:10 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:55:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 08:47:45 PM
I think the prison camp rd interchange being small is keeping it from meeting interstate stardards.
How?
The radius of the ramps being 180 feet and not 230.
That doesn't prevent it from meeting interstate standards...?
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf
http://prntscr.com/12g5hsu
None of those "ramp radius" improvements are required to bring the highway to interstate standards. They are merely safety improvement projects that go beyond the immediate scope of upgrading to interstate standards. To be honest, how many issues have occurred at that particular interchange that warrant the construction of such improvements? It appears to be a low volume rural interchange with adequate signage for a 25 mph advisory speed. I'm not against improvements if they are warranted and can be done at a low cost, but just merely a consideration. That study evaluated options to bring all loops to a 230 foot radius which is the ideal standard for a 70 mph highway per NCDOT's recommendations.
And they might raise the speed limit in Rocky Mount. That's why it's posted at 65 mph and not 70.
And I don't know what "widen ramps" mean.
And they want to replace this bridge too.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8875094,-77.5387837,3a,75y,113.52h,62.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szLSe35-b_hlMmWQIL1YLzg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DzLSe35-b_hlMmWQIL1YLzg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D198.90343%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Quote
And I don't know what "widen ramps" mean.
Realign the ramp with a wider radius?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 09:22:54 PM
Quote
And I don't know what "widen ramps" mean.
Realign the ramp with a wider radius?
I get that, but I was talking about just "widen ramps" shown in that document.
Do the ramps have a 16ft width? If not, that may be what they're referring to.
Quote from: froggie on May 03, 2021, 10:07:36 PM
Do the ramps have a 16ft width? If not, that may be what they're referring to.
According to that link, I'm assuming no.
Which interchanges specifically? Looking at the NC-125 one, it is 16 ft or greater.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 10:22:18 PM
Which interchanges specifically? Looking at the NC-125 one, it is 16 ft or greater.
Then that link makes no sense....
They should add an auxiliary lane that goes to 264 east. Easier to navigate, don't you think?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8333857,-78.3125751,498m/data=!3m1!1e3
Presentation from the May 20th HRTPO meeting regarding the upcoming Hampton Roads Gateways Study.
QuoteIntroduction
Improvements have been proposed for many of the corridors that provide access to and from Hampton Roads.
- Widening I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg
- Replacing all or portions of US Route 58 and US Route 460 with limited-access facilities
- Replacing portions of US Route 17 and US Route 64 with limited-access facilities (I-87)
- Because of the importance of these gateways to the vitality of Hampton Roads, HRTPO will be preparing a study to compare proposed improvements to these gateways based on the impact on the region.
Major Regional Gateways
- VA Route 168
- US Route 17 (Proposed I-87)
- US Route 58
- US Route 460
- I-64 West
- US Route 17 North
- US Route 13 North
Existing Travel Characteristics
I-64 from I-295 to I-664 (Coliseum)
- via I-64
Distance | % Limited Access | Travel Time | Average Speed |
| 64 miles | 100% | 55 mins | 70.0 MPH |
Hampton Roads to Raleigh Routes
- via US-58 / I-95
Distance | % Limited Access | Travel Time | Average Speed |
| 178 miles | 75% | 2 hr 41 mins | 66.2 MPH |
- via US-17 / US-64 (Proposed I-87)
Distance | % Limited Access | Travel Time | Average Speed |
| 194 miles | 66% | 2 hr 57 mins | 65.6 MPH |
Proposed Study Elements
Identify corridors serving outside areas
- Compare:
- The current usage of highways by area served:
- Total vehicle volumes
- Truck volumes
- Trucks serving the port
- Areas by port-related origins/destinations
- Current travel times for highways
- Future travel times for highways based on future scenarios
Proposed Study Elements
- Identify planned improvements by corridor
- Consider other measures such as safety and economic development opportunities.
- Prioritize investments based on overall impact for our region
- Consider overall impact for our region
- Job creation
- Economic impacts
- Port as an economic driver
- Quality of life
- Coordination with HRPDC
Presentation: https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/052021%20TPO%2007_Presentation%20FY%202022%20UPWP%20-%20Hampton%20Roads%20Regional%20Gateways.pdf
Drove on US-17 between the Virginia state line and Edenton today...
A few things...
- The Elizabeth City Bypass has been fully resurfaced, very smooth ride.
- The median break at Morgan's Corner Rd north of US-158 has been closed, making it now a RIRO intersection for southbound, no northbound access. I suppose this is to prevent traffic from US-158 East from using Morgan's Corner as a cutover to US-17 North and instead making them go to the signal to turn left.
- They are some sort of new road connection just south of the welcome center, set up with an R-CUT and the whole nine yards... doesn't appear to go anywhere yet. Seems odd they are doing this considering that segment north of Elizabeth City is effectively a limited access highway... why would they be authorizing new access points? Additionally, given the future with eventually a controlled access interstate highway, seems counterintuitive to introduce more conflict points.
- I was honestly surprised with how busy US-17 was overall the whole way... it was moving but dense in a lot areas. Traffic has certainly increased over the years.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 08:14:52 PM
Drove on US-17 between the Virginia state line and Edenton today...
A few things...
- The Elizabeth City Bypass has been fully resurfaced, very smooth ride.
- The median break at Morgan's Corner Rd north of US-158 has been closed, making it now a RIRO intersection for southbound, no northbound access. I suppose this is to prevent traffic from US-158 East from using Morgan's Corner as a cutover to US-17 North and instead making them go to the signal to turn left.
- They are some sort of new road connection just south of the welcome center, set up with an R-CUT and the whole nine yards... doesn't appear to go anywhere yet. Seems odd they are doing this considering that segment north of Elizabeth City is effectively a limited access highway... why would they be authorizing new access points? Additionally, given the future with eventually a controlled access interstate highway, seems counterintuitive to introduce more conflict points.
- I was honestly surprised with how busy US-17 was overall the whole way... it was moving but dense in a lot areas. Traffic has certainly increased over the years.
So that's probably why they are seeking funding. Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Who said they want to do this first?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Who said they want to do this first?
NCDOT!
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 10:31:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Who said they want to do this first?
NCDOT!
Source?
https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 10:31:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Who said they want to do this first?
NCDOT!
Source?
https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html
Those counties in Eastern North Carolina pushed for this grant application. And for the record, I-42 and US-74 have already had grant applications submitted by NCDOT and accepted. So no, this isn't the "first" of them. And also, they've submitted this I-87 package every year for the past few years. It has been continuously not given funding. It's merely a process of continuing to submit it annually until something does come of it eventually, that's the hope.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 10:31:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Who said they want to do this first?
NCDOT!
Source?
https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html
Those counties in Eastern North Carolina pushed for this grant application. And for the record, I-42 and US-74 have already had grant applications submitted by NCDOT and accepted. So no, this isn't the "first" of them. And also, they've submitted this I-87 package every year for the past few years. It has been continuously not given funding. It's merely a process of continuing to submit it annually until something does come of it eventually, that's the hope.
NCDOT, as well as the NE NC interests promoting the corridor in general and this form of grant in particular, likely see their previous success with the I-42 and I/US 74 corridors as eventually spilling over to I-87 -- especially if the other corridors are not submitted for this round of grants; seeing as how they were addressed with prior applications. Not competing with oneself is a pretty reasonable way to enhance one's chances for success in the grant arena. OTOH, the previously successful grant applications were for corridors or segments fully within NC, so any grant request could and would be a unilateral action by a single state's DOT, whereas one
completely addressing I-87 would have to be a joint application with VDOT as well unless it was specified that the grant would be only for that corridor portion within NC, something that might give pause to the grantors, who would be disbursing funds for an incomplete project. And that may well serve as an indication that said project,
in toto, has a correspondingly diminished chance for completion -- a situation that may have hindered past requests. Now -- if NCDOT has secured a "sign-off" from VDOT, or has managed to get the latter agency to submit a similar request for their short corridor portion, the prospects for acceptance should be decidedly better.
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2021, 07:38:47 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 10:31:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Who said they want to do this first?
NCDOT!
Source?
https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html
Those counties in Eastern North Carolina pushed for this grant application. And for the record, I-42 and US-74 have already had grant applications submitted by NCDOT and accepted. So no, this isn't the "first" of them. And also, they've submitted this I-87 package every year for the past few years. It has been continuously not given funding. It's merely a process of continuing to submit it annually until something does come of it eventually, that's the hope.
NCDOT, as well as the NE NC interests promoting the corridor in general and this form of grant in particular, likely see their previous success with the I-42 and I/US 74 corridors as eventually spilling over to I-87 -- especially if the other corridors are not submitted for this round of grants; seeing as how they were addressed with prior applications. Not competing with oneself is a pretty reasonable way to enhance one's chances for success in the grant arena. OTOH, the previously successful grant applications were for corridors or segments fully within NC, so any grant request could and would be a unilateral action by a single state's DOT, whereas one completely addressing I-87 would have to be a joint application with VDOT as well unless it was specified that the grant would be only for that corridor portion within NC, something that might give pause to the grantors, who would be disbursing funds for an incomplete project. And that may well serve as an indication that said project, in toto, has a correspondingly diminished chance for completion -- a situation that may have hindered past requests. Now -- if NCDOT has secured a "sign-off" from VDOT, or has managed to get the latter agency to submit a similar request for their short corridor portion, the prospects for acceptance should be decidedly better.
I-87 is also dependent on what VDOT would do. I have not heard anything about it from VDOT other than the studies...... the funding for I-87 should just wait, or send money to other projects. No reason to seek funding for I-87 unless they're trying to extend it from its current ending to I-95.
Quote from: Strider on June 03, 2021, 05:55:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2021, 07:38:47 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 10:31:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Who said they want to do this first?
NCDOT!
Source?
https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html
Those counties in Eastern North Carolina pushed for this grant application. And for the record, I-42 and US-74 have already had grant applications submitted by NCDOT and accepted. So no, this isn't the "first" of them. And also, they've submitted this I-87 package every year for the past few years. It has been continuously not given funding. It's merely a process of continuing to submit it annually until something does come of it eventually, that's the hope.
NCDOT, as well as the NE NC interests promoting the corridor in general and this form of grant in particular, likely see their previous success with the I-42 and I/US 74 corridors as eventually spilling over to I-87 -- especially if the other corridors are not submitted for this round of grants; seeing as how they were addressed with prior applications. Not competing with oneself is a pretty reasonable way to enhance one's chances for success in the grant arena. OTOH, the previously successful grant applications were for corridors or segments fully within NC, so any grant request could and would be a unilateral action by a single state's DOT, whereas one completely addressing I-87 would have to be a joint application with VDOT as well unless it was specified that the grant would be only for that corridor portion within NC, something that might give pause to the grantors, who would be disbursing funds for an incomplete project. And that may well serve as an indication that said project, in toto, has a correspondingly diminished chance for completion -- a situation that may have hindered past requests. Now -- if NCDOT has secured a "sign-off" from VDOT, or has managed to get the latter agency to submit a similar request for their short corridor portion, the prospects for acceptance should be decidedly better.
I-87 is also dependent on what VDOT would do. I have not heard anything about it from VDOT other than the studies...... the funding for I-87 should just wait, or send money to other projects. No reason to seek funding for I-87 unless they're trying to extend it from its current ending to I-95.
I would guess that even if VDOT balks at committing to their corridor segment, at some point NCDOT would request a more moderate level of funding simply to upgrade the substandard section from Knightdale to Tarboro in order to potentially sign the US 64 section of the corridor as I-87 for the purpose of regional economic attraction -- seeing as how it would connect to both I-40 and I-95 at that juncture. An action of that type would likely at least placate the corridor's more vehement in-state backers in the near term.
Quote from: Strider on June 03, 2021, 05:55:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2021, 07:38:47 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 10:31:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Who said they want to do this first?
NCDOT!
Source?
https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html
Those counties in Eastern North Carolina pushed for this grant application. And for the record, I-42 and US-74 have already had grant applications submitted by NCDOT and accepted. So no, this isn't the "first" of them. And also, they've submitted this I-87 package every year for the past few years. It has been continuously not given funding. It's merely a process of continuing to submit it annually until something does come of it eventually, that's the hope.
NCDOT, as well as the NE NC interests promoting the corridor in general and this form of grant in particular, likely see their previous success with the I-42 and I/US 74 corridors as eventually spilling over to I-87 -- especially if the other corridors are not submitted for this round of grants; seeing as how they were addressed with prior applications. Not competing with oneself is a pretty reasonable way to enhance one's chances for success in the grant arena. OTOH, the previously successful grant applications were for corridors or segments fully within NC, so any grant request could and would be a unilateral action by a single state's DOT, whereas one completely addressing I-87 would have to be a joint application with VDOT as well unless it was specified that the grant would be only for that corridor portion within NC, something that might give pause to the grantors, who would be disbursing funds for an incomplete project. And that may well serve as an indication that said project, in toto, has a correspondingly diminished chance for completion -- a situation that may have hindered past requests. Now -- if NCDOT has secured a "sign-off" from VDOT, or has managed to get the latter agency to submit a similar request for their short corridor portion, the prospects for acceptance should be decidedly better.
I-87 is also dependent on what VDOT would do. I have not heard anything about it from VDOT other than the studies...... the funding for I-87 should just wait, or send money to other projects. No reason to seek funding for I-87 unless they're trying to extend it from its current ending to I-95.
I see an opposite effect... why would VDOT commit to their small portion of upgrading US-17 if there's no guarantee of anything happening in North Carolina? North Carolina should focus efforts on completing their entire stretch first, then whatever gap between Norfolk and Raleigh will be left in Virginia, and their will be a higher priority need to get that small "finish line" type project done.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2021, 07:06:01 PM
Quote from: Strider on June 03, 2021, 05:55:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2021, 07:38:47 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 10:31:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
Can't believe they want to do this first rather than I-795 and I-42.
Who said they want to do this first?
NCDOT!
Source?
https://www.dailyadvance.com/chowan/news/local/ncdot-seeking-federal-funding-for-proposed-i-87/article_becf311a-69fb-567d-ae67-78a3e47a35a1.html
Those counties in Eastern North Carolina pushed for this grant application. And for the record, I-42 and US-74 have already had grant applications submitted by NCDOT and accepted. So no, this isn't the "first" of them. And also, they've submitted this I-87 package every year for the past few years. It has been continuously not given funding. It's merely a process of continuing to submit it annually until something does come of it eventually, that's the hope.
NCDOT, as well as the NE NC interests promoting the corridor in general and this form of grant in particular, likely see their previous success with the I-42 and I/US 74 corridors as eventually spilling over to I-87 -- especially if the other corridors are not submitted for this round of grants; seeing as how they were addressed with prior applications. Not competing with oneself is a pretty reasonable way to enhance one's chances for success in the grant arena. OTOH, the previously successful grant applications were for corridors or segments fully within NC, so any grant request could and would be a unilateral action by a single state's DOT, whereas one completely addressing I-87 would have to be a joint application with VDOT as well unless it was specified that the grant would be only for that corridor portion within NC, something that might give pause to the grantors, who would be disbursing funds for an incomplete project. And that may well serve as an indication that said project, in toto, has a correspondingly diminished chance for completion -- a situation that may have hindered past requests. Now -- if NCDOT has secured a "sign-off" from VDOT, or has managed to get the latter agency to submit a similar request for their short corridor portion, the prospects for acceptance should be decidedly better.
I-87 is also dependent on what VDOT would do. I have not heard anything about it from VDOT other than the studies...... the funding for I-87 should just wait, or send money to other projects. No reason to seek funding for I-87 unless they're trying to extend it from its current ending to I-95.
I see an opposite effect... why would VDOT commit to their small portion of upgrading US-17 if there's no guarantee of anything happening in North Carolina? North Carolina should focus efforts on completing their entire stretch first, then whatever gap between Norfolk and Raleigh will be left in Virginia, and their will be a higher priority need to get that small "finish line" type project done.
Because NCDOT isn't going to complete their entire stretch of I-87 with their funding woes. There are many other projects more important than I-87. I can see I-87 completed to I-95, but any farther east? Good luck supporting that.
Nobody is saying it's going to get completed immediately. It's going to be a couple decades to complete the corridor over many segments. It's going to get done, it's just a matter of when.
I agree there's higher priorities. But completing a limited access connection to Hampton Roads will eventually become one, at some point.
Wouldn't something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2886306,-91.1520929,3a,56.1y,233.14h,82.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqY6W1SfNsK9y2aRFnbpQxQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DqY6W1SfNsK9y2aRFnbpQxQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D318.92297%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) be perfect through Williamston instead of something that's bland? I tend to see these more in other states.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 04, 2021, 09:43:53 PM
Wouldn't something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2886306,-91.1520929,3a,56.1y,233.14h,82.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqY6W1SfNsK9y2aRFnbpQxQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DqY6W1SfNsK9y2aRFnbpQxQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D318.92297%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) be perfect through Williamston instead of something that's bland? I tend to see these more in other states.
Where exactly would this be needed?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 04, 2021, 10:11:26 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 04, 2021, 09:43:53 PM
Wouldn't something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2886306,-91.1520929,3a,56.1y,233.14h,82.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqY6W1SfNsK9y2aRFnbpQxQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DqY6W1SfNsK9y2aRFnbpQxQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D318.92297%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) be perfect through Williamston instead of something that's bland? I tend to see these more in other states.
Where exactly would this be needed?
Williamston over the Roanoke river and swamp.
A cable-stayed bridge would be serious overkill there. Cable-stayed bridges are typically intended where the main span is anywhere from about 350ft to 1500ft. The Roanoke River is less than 300ft wide there and the main span of the existing bridge is half that.
Most of the swamp is traversed at-grade (albeit on an elevated berm). No need for a big bridge there.
Quote from: froggie on June 05, 2021, 01:06:40 AM
A cable-stayed bridge would be serious overkill there. Cable-stayed bridges are typically intended where the main span is anywhere from about 350ft to 1500ft. The Roanoke River is less than 300ft wide there and the main span of the existing bridge is half that.
Most of the swamp is traversed at-grade (albeit on an elevated berm). No need for a big bridge there.
but when it rains hard, it will get flooded.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 05, 2021, 12:40:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 05, 2021, 01:06:40 AM
A cable-stayed bridge would be serious overkill there. Cable-stayed bridges are typically intended where the main span is anywhere from about 350ft to 1500ft. The Roanoke River is less than 300ft wide there and the main span of the existing bridge is half that.
Most of the swamp is traversed at-grade (albeit on an elevated berm). No need for a big bridge there.
but when it rains hard, it will get flooded.
That's why the berm is elevated. Generally the configuration is that elevated berm with periodic bridges or culverts to allow water flow between the sides of the road -- so the berm doesn't function as a dam. With a swamp, where excess water is dissipated over a large area, that method tends to work quite well.
It's pretty obvious that tolbs hasn't driven/ridden 13/17 north of Williamston, or he'd recognize that the existing roadway is already several feet above the level of the swamp.
Quote from: froggie on June 05, 2021, 10:42:41 PM
It's pretty obvious that tolbs hasn't driven/ridden 13/17 north of Williamston, or he'd recognize that the existing roadway is already several feet above the level of the swamp.
So a long bridge is not needed?
Nope.
The only instance I would think a bridge would be needed across the swamp is if they chose to relocate the highway on a new alignment - which was officially proposed as an option. But either way, it would likely be a standard long bridge.
But in all reality, unless resiliency was an issue and there was a desire to raise / elevate the current segment higher than it is, I merely see them widening the shoulders and capturing any limited access needed through that swamp section to bring it to interstate standards.
It would require a hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) analysis to determine if encroachment in the floodway (fill for shoulders) would cause a rise in the base flood elevation of the Roanoke River. If it does, sections may have to be elevated, structures added, etc. The BFE is 11 feet, and it looks like the elevation of the northbound roadway is between 14 and 15 feet, so significant changes are probably not warranted with the current alignment. Floodplains that wide can hold a lot of water without much rise in the BFE. A new alignment would be a different story.
NCDOT has various MOAs with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program for this type of stuff.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/pdf/roaddiets_presentation.pdf
At page 9, I'm sure the old alignment will be narrowed down from 5 lanes to 3 lanes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0344112,-76.7847438,3a,75y,40.86h,81.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shaEEPX66zsQEIYfd33EZCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
new alignment will prolly draw 85% of the traffic off from the old alignment.
If the existing alignment is upgraded (unlikely), it'll just be frontage / backage roads. In the case of new alignment (likely), I can't see why they'd go through the effort at all at downsizing the road. But that is certainly a possibility if desired locally.
Also, can something like this be done to save gas and mileage? The lawmakers were talking about it, NCDOT has drawings on it but it will take out a church and cemetery that easily can be bypassed.
http://prntscr.com/15fo3wf
Yes it will replace both the bridges built in 1966 and I think 1994, but will be more efficient being replaced with just one big one.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 14, 2021, 07:10:45 PM
If the existing alignment is upgraded (unlikely), it'll just be frontage / backage roads. In the case of new alignment (likely), I can't see why they'd go through the effort at all at downsizing the road. But that is certainly a possibility if desired locally.
I was thinking that because there is a lot of houses on the busy highway
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 14, 2021, 07:19:31 PM
Also, can something like this be done to save gas and mileage? The lawmakers were talking about it, NCDOT has drawings on it but it will take out a church and cemetery that easily can be bypassed.
http://prntscr.com/15fo3wf
Yes it will replace both the bridges built in 1966 and I think 1994, but will be more efficient being replaced with just one big one.
Not sure the new bridge alignment is needed, but I'd argue a northern bypass is likely over upgrading on existing location due to right of way, plus the geometry of the road (though, curves could be straightened to safely handle 75 mph travel).
Not sure it would save mileage though.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 14, 2021, 07:37:50 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 14, 2021, 07:19:31 PM
Also, can something like this be done to save gas and mileage? The lawmakers were talking about it, NCDOT has drawings on it but it will take out a church and cemetery that easily can be bypassed.
http://prntscr.com/15fo3wf
Yes it will replace both the bridges built in 1966 and I think 1994, but will be more efficient being replaced with just one big one.
Not sure the new bridge alignment is needed, but I'd argue a northern bypass is likely over upgrading on existing location due to right of way, plus the geometry of the road (though, curves could be straightened to safely handle 75 mph travel).
Not sure it would save mileage though.
But it takes out a cemetery
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 14, 2021, 07:46:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 14, 2021, 07:37:50 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 14, 2021, 07:19:31 PM
Also, can something like this be done to save gas and mileage? The lawmakers were talking about it, NCDOT has drawings on it but it will take out a church and cemetery that easily can be bypassed.
http://prntscr.com/15fo3wf
Yes it will replace both the bridges built in 1966 and I think 1994, but will be more efficient being replaced with just one big one.
Not sure the new bridge alignment is needed, but I'd argue a northern bypass is likely over upgrading on existing location due to right of way, plus the geometry of the road (though, curves could be straightened to safely handle 75 mph travel).
Not sure it would save mileage though.
But it takes out a cemetery
Shift the alignment where needed to avoid it.
Quote from: LM117 on October 12, 2020, 09:24:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2020, 08:20:38 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 19, 2016, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
QuoteROCKY MOUNT, N.C. – After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.
The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.
Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.
DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.
Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.
It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.
This CSX terminal facility has been talked about for several years, principally in the RR industry press (including the publicly available Trains magazine). It was apparently cancelled about 5 years ago due to a downturn in traffic and the adoption of "scheduled railroading" by CSX among others, a practice which tends to foreshadow a consolidation of origin/destination points rather than the deployment of additional ones. But it seems the political value of building and operating the facility outweighed internal doubts, so it's finally being done. FWIH from several quarters is that "Panamax" is indeed increasing the inbound volume from several East Coast and Gulf ports; this likely also figured into CSX's decision to resume development of the Rocky Mount yard/marshalling location.
It's not being built as large as originally planned, though. The state managed to convince CSX not to pull out altogether, so CSX finally agreed to build a scaled-down version of the terminal. This agreement happened after the then-CSX CEO Hunter Harrison died. IIRC, it was his idea to kill the project.
Here's an image of the construction taken back in July:
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/._Qlf9RWkG3Qg.2eAn8KJQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtoPTY2Ng--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/Benzinga/0cc9ade1295219d7752cb628f5f49d9f)
To give an update, the terminal is expected to open in 2 months.
https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-to-bring-thousands-of-jobs-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-into-nc-through-rocky-mount-area/19783199/ (https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-to-bring-thousands-of-jobs-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-into-nc-through-rocky-mount-area/19783199/)
The I-87 projects did not receive any INFRA grant funding (again). North Carolina didn't get anything this year.
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/infra-grants/infrastructure-rebuilding-america (https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/infra-grants/infrastructure-rebuilding-america)
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on July 27, 2021, 06:17:06 PM
The I-87 projects did not receive any INFRA grant funding (again). North Carolina didn't get anything this year.
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/infra-grants/infrastructure-rebuilding-america (https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/infra-grants/infrastructure-rebuilding-america)
Not surprised about I-87, but I do wish that some federal dollars would be sent for the new alignment Neuse River crossing for I-795.
Quote from: LM117 on July 27, 2021, 06:27:34 PM
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on July 27, 2021, 06:17:06 PM
The I-87 projects did not receive any INFRA grant funding (again). North Carolina didn't get anything this year.
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/infra-grants/infrastructure-rebuilding-america (https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/infra-grants/infrastructure-rebuilding-america)
Not surprised about I-87, but I do wish that some federal dollars would be sent for the new alignment Neuse River crossing for I-795.
Seems like the freeway-related projects listed fall into a few categories: rehabilitation (e.g. I-90/SD), local service augmentation (I-25/NM, new interchange and connector), and addressing urban problems (I-70/71/Columbus) largely stemming from '50's and '60's design. Not much in the way of upgrading non-freeways into freeways (the US 17 portion of I-87) or simply raising working and ostensibly non-deteriorated facilities to Interstate standards (the US 64 portion). Since this funding round precedes the omnibus infrastructure bill that, at this writing, may or may not be working it way through Congress -- but
does reflect at some level administration priorities -- it indicates the basic direction the "top-down" POV will entail -- but the overall bill will be tempered by the aggregate congressional "wish list", particularly now that earmarks have been reinstated. Still, it'll probably be a few years down the line until the I-87 corridor gets much in the way of focus; the administration's submissions will almost assuredly follow this INFRA pattern or even veer more toward urban projects over time, and the various congressional delegations will be competing for whatever funds are available, so it's more of the same process of standing in line unless NC folks can get earmarks through the process, which requires both motivation and follow-through.
I was thinking I-87 would still be important cause it's to draw traffic from US-58, NC-11, and I-95, onto US-17 and US-64. Which can definitely stop the need to widen I-95 north of US-64.
^ It's not going to pull that much traffic off 95. Even the ardent I-87 supporters are admitting that I-87 is primarily to create economic development in northeastern NC, not to pull traffic from elsewhere.
^ Even if the majority of the Hampton Roads bound traffic was diverted away from I-95 onto I-87, assuming VDOT leaves US-58 unimproved, that's still not a significant volume diverted away from I-95. The vast majority of traffic on I-95 in North Carolina is continuing beyond US-58 in Virginia.
Quote from: froggie on July 27, 2021, 11:15:54 PM
^ It's not going to pull that much traffic off 95. Even the ardent I-87 supporters are admitting that I-87 is primarily to create economic development in northeastern NC, not to pull traffic from elsewhere.
Will Elizabeth City's population go to 100,000?
^ Who knows. Maybe not that far, but as development moves south into Southern Chesapeake, it could eventually move further. Having US-17 as an interstate highway in the long term, combined with those factors, Elizabeth City and that part of Northeastern North Carolina could have a decent amount of population growth over the next 20-40 years.
Moyock is growing pretty good, that northern part of Currituck County. Lots of new developments being built that way.
Quote from: LM117 on July 21, 2021, 10:41:17 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 12, 2020, 09:24:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2020, 08:20:38 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 19, 2016, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
QuoteROCKY MOUNT, N.C. – After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.
The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.
Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.
DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.
Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.
It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.
This CSX terminal facility has been talked about for several years, principally in the RR industry press (including the publicly available Trains magazine). It was apparently cancelled about 5 years ago due to a downturn in traffic and the adoption of "scheduled railroading" by CSX among others, a practice which tends to foreshadow a consolidation of origin/destination points rather than the deployment of additional ones. But it seems the political value of building and operating the facility outweighed internal doubts, so it's finally being done. FWIH from several quarters is that "Panamax" is indeed increasing the inbound volume from several East Coast and Gulf ports; this likely also figured into CSX's decision to resume development of the Rocky Mount yard/marshalling location.
It's not being built as large as originally planned, though. The state managed to convince CSX not to pull out altogether, so CSX finally agreed to build a scaled-down version of the terminal. This agreement happened after the then-CSX CEO Hunter Harrison died. IIRC, it was his idea to kill the project.
Here's an image of the construction taken back in July:
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/._Qlf9RWkG3Qg.2eAn8KJQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtoPTY2Ng--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/Benzinga/0cc9ade1295219d7752cb628f5f49d9f)
To give an update, the terminal is expected to open in 2 months.
https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-to-bring-thousands-of-jobs-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-into-nc-through-rocky-mount-area/19783199/ (https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-to-bring-thousands-of-jobs-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-into-nc-through-rocky-mount-area/19783199/)
...aaaannnd it's open.
https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-terminal-comes-online-as-state-grapples-with-supply-chain-issues/19956579/ (https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-terminal-comes-online-as-state-grapples-with-supply-chain-issues/19956579/)
Quote from: LM117 on November 01, 2021, 09:01:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 21, 2021, 10:41:17 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 12, 2020, 09:24:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2020, 08:20:38 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 19, 2016, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
QuoteROCKY MOUNT, N.C. – After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.
The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.
Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.
DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.
Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.
It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.
This CSX terminal facility has been talked about for several years, principally in the RR industry press (including the publicly available Trains magazine). It was apparently cancelled about 5 years ago due to a downturn in traffic and the adoption of "scheduled railroading" by CSX among others, a practice which tends to foreshadow a consolidation of origin/destination points rather than the deployment of additional ones. But it seems the political value of building and operating the facility outweighed internal doubts, so it's finally being done. FWIH from several quarters is that "Panamax" is indeed increasing the inbound volume from several East Coast and Gulf ports; this likely also figured into CSX's decision to resume development of the Rocky Mount yard/marshalling location.
It's not being built as large as originally planned, though. The state managed to convince CSX not to pull out altogether, so CSX finally agreed to build a scaled-down version of the terminal. This agreement happened after the then-CSX CEO Hunter Harrison died. IIRC, it was his idea to kill the project.
Here's an image of the construction taken back in July:
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/._Qlf9RWkG3Qg.2eAn8KJQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtoPTY2Ng--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/Benzinga/0cc9ade1295219d7752cb628f5f49d9f)
To give an update, the terminal is expected to open in 5 months.
https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-to-bring-thousands-of-jobs-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-into-nc-through-rocky-mount-area/19783199/ (https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-to-bring-thousands-of-jobs-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-into-nc-through-rocky-mount-area/19783199/)
...aaaannnd it's open.
https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-terminal-comes-online-as-state-grapples-with-supply-chain-issues/19956579/ (https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-terminal-comes-online-as-state-grapples-with-supply-chain-issues/19956579/)
FTFY
Virginia could really seize on the woes at the Ports of LA/LB if it got started on this.
Not really, given that the ships in LA/LB would have several thousand miles to travel to get to Hampton Roads, even if they headed to the East Coast directly from Asia.
Quote from: froggie on November 12, 2021, 10:56:32 AM
Not really, given that the ships in LA/LB would have several thousand miles to travel to get to Hampton Roads, even if they headed to the East Coast directly from Asia.
But the ports at Hampton Roads are automated and everything's running smoothly
https://www.wtkr.com/news/some-hampton-roads-stores-feeling-the-pinch-of-supply-chain-issues
This is isn't the first time LA/LB has had labor issues and it won't be the last.
There is a growing boom of activity along arctic shipping routes. Less and less polar ice year 'round opens the door for ships traveling from Asia to use the Arctic Ocean as an alternative to crossing the Pacific. They can travel near the East Asian coastline up to the Bering Strait and use the Northwest Passage to Newfoundland. It's almost a straight shot. Then they hang a right turn and head to the US East Coast.
^ I crunched the numbers for that. Even going around Alaska and through the Northwest Passage, from Hong Kong it's 1700 miles farther just to get the Gulf of St Lawrence than it is to LA, let alone beyond to one of the East Coast ports. And that's assuming Baffin Bay is ice free (it usually isn't, and is iceberg-prone from the floes coming off the west coast of Greenland).
Furthermore, you're only going to have a 2-3 month window during the Northern Hemisphere summer to use such a route. It'll still completely ice up over the winter, and it takes time for that ice to melt.
Quote from: LM117 on November 01, 2021, 09:01:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 21, 2021, 10:41:17 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 12, 2020, 09:24:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2020, 08:20:38 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 19, 2016, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.
http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)
QuoteROCKY MOUNT, N.C. – After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.
The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.
Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.
DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.
Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX's main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.
It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.
This CSX terminal facility has been talked about for several years, principally in the RR industry press (including the publicly available Trains magazine). It was apparently cancelled about 5 years ago due to a downturn in traffic and the adoption of "scheduled railroading" by CSX among others, a practice which tends to foreshadow a consolidation of origin/destination points rather than the deployment of additional ones. But it seems the political value of building and operating the facility outweighed internal doubts, so it's finally being done. FWIH from several quarters is that "Panamax" is indeed increasing the inbound volume from several East Coast and Gulf ports; this likely also figured into CSX's decision to resume development of the Rocky Mount yard/marshalling location.
It's not being built as large as originally planned, though. The state managed to convince CSX not to pull out altogether, so CSX finally agreed to build a scaled-down version of the terminal. This agreement happened after the then-CSX CEO Hunter Harrison died. IIRC, it was his idea to kill the project.
Here's an image of the construction taken back in July:
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/._Qlf9RWkG3Qg.2eAn8KJQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtoPTY2Ng--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/Benzinga/0cc9ade1295219d7752cb628f5f49d9f)
To give an update, the terminal is expected to open in 2 months.
https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-to-bring-thousands-of-jobs-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-into-nc-through-rocky-mount-area/19783199/ (https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-to-bring-thousands-of-jobs-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-into-nc-through-rocky-mount-area/19783199/)
...aaaannnd it's open.
https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-terminal-comes-online-as-state-grapples-with-supply-chain-issues/19956579/ (https://www.wral.com/carolina-connector-terminal-comes-online-as-state-grapples-with-supply-chain-issues/19956579/)
The ribbon-cutting ceremony was held today.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-18-cooper-lauds-new-csx-carolina-connector-intermodal-facility.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-18-cooper-lauds-new-csx-carolina-connector-intermodal-facility.aspx)
I see reduced conflict intersections coming up on US-17 in South Mills, but they are not part of the corridor. These are definitely temporary.
https://goo.gl/maps/saUmWzgjycY5jEiS8
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 07:22:43 AM
I see reduced conflict intersections coming up on US-17 in South Mills, but they are not part of the corridor. These are definitely temporary.
https://goo.gl/maps/saUmWzgjycY5jEiS8
I saw these months ago, and truly have no clue what they are.
If you notice, there's a new road that is built off there, with a "speed limit 45" sign that indicates there's plan to extend it a decent length.
The RCUT would serve this new road, nothing existing.
Not sure why the county would permit a new access point to be constructed given there's a desire to upgrade that stretch to interstate standards by the end of the decade.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 23, 2022, 07:27:55 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 07:22:43 AM
I see reduced conflict intersections coming up on US-17 in South Mills, but they are not part of the corridor. These are definitely temporary.
https://goo.gl/maps/saUmWzgjycY5jEiS8
I saw these months ago, and truly have no clue what they are.
If you notice, there's a new road that is built off there, with a "speed limit 45" sign that indicates there's plan to extend it a decent length.
The RCUT would serve this new road, nothing existing.
Not sure why the county would permit a new access point to be constructed given there's a desire to upgrade that stretch to interstate standards by the end of the decade.
With those being done, I wonder what the hell are they doing?! The same goes to Eastfield Crossing when looking at they put a huge development in the way of the I-95 relocation. Frontage roads would have to be constructed for access of whatever development they are building.
NCDOT has installed a new traffic signal along US-17 (northbound only) at the intersection of US-17 Business (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4354554,-76.3385238,3a,46.6y,8.82h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssmMezLxC-YRVXPF2KP2oNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) outside South Mills.
Not sure why, but it adds a second signal along an otherwise free-flowing 60 mph limited-access highway between Elizabeth City and Chesapeake.
I've never seen enough vehicles here to warrant a signal, and the intersection redesign done a few years ago only requires turning traffic to cross one set of lanes. Through traffic on US-17 is light enough to the point there are many opportunities for gaps in traffic as well, allowing vehicles to safely cross. At most, there should have been flashing beacons added to the intersection. The full traffic signal simply adds another interruption to through traffic on US-17 northbound.
Must have been enough crashes there to warrant it.
NCDOT has awarded a pavement rehabilitation contract for 14 miles of US 64 (Future I-87) in Nash and Edgecombe Counties. Work is to be completed in the fall of 2023. While some shoulder work is mentioned, there is nothing about bringing the road up to interstate standards:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-08-us-64-repaved.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-08-us-64-repaved.aspx)
64E east of Tarboro has the worst road surface in the state. Stay in the left lane or else... I travel weekly between DC and New Bern.
On the I-587 thread we've been learning about how 587 is being signed between I-95 and Greenville and how the section of US 264/Future I-587 between US 64/Future I-87 and I-95 will be getting I-587-appropriate mileage signs and exit numbers. Also, there are plans to begin upgrading this latter section to interstate status in 3-4 years thus completing I-587.
Great. Now, can someone give us a corresponding report on planned upgrades to US 64/Future I-87 between I-440 and I-95?
Try bob7374's extensive webpage about North Carolina Highways and New England Highways: https://malmeroads.net/. It has all the up-to-date information one could want.
Google Maps has updated its Street View images to October or September along I-40 east in the widening project construction zone, at least between Raleigh and Garner. New overhead signs for the Beltline exit on I-40 West have been updated to include I-87. Here's one of the images from September:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i87signsgsv922b.jpg)
Unlike the signs on I-40 East, there is no reference to Rocky Mount, just route shields.
Quote
And the city (Chesapeake) is planning a mega site development near the North Carolina border, with the prospect of the interstate running alongside it in mind, but is planning to construct an at-grade signalized intersection on rural US-17 using one of the authorized breaks in limited access right of way currently used for farm access.
City Council approved this development last month and according to the latest report (https://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/planning/FWFarm/PLN-PUDC-2022-001+City+Council+Package.pdf), the plan now calls for a grade-separated interchange to be constructed along US-17 for this "megasite" development. This would be located within the first mile or so of US-17 in Virginia just north of the North Carolina state line.
QuoteThe following improvements will be provided as part of this development:
I. Primary Site Access- A grade-separated interchange will be constructed for the primary development access off Route 17. The final location will be approved by the City and VDOT to insure spacing of roadways consistent with access management plans and principles. These improvements will be constructed and operational prior to the first certificate of occupancy within the development unless approved otherwise by the Director of Development and Permits as a result of an approved TIA. The interchange will include the following:
i. Sufficient number of lanes on the overpass (grade separation) to provide a LOS D or better.
ii. Ramp lane quantities, Route 17 mainline diverge and merge lane lengths, and geometry in accordance with a City approved TIA and VDOT criteria.
iii. Signalization at the intersection of the access road overpass and the southbound on and off ramps as warranted.
iv. Accommodations for pedestrian access and connectivity to the greatest extent possible.
Linking the VA Tidewater area with RDU is a fine idea as far as I'm concerned. The Norfolk/Chesapeake/VA Beach area is the largest population area I can think of that is such a dead end on the interstate system. This would help to alleviate that. Also beneficial is this routing provides a lot of smallish cities with needed access to the rest of their state. What I don't get is (and it's admittedly OCD) why in the heck they gave this new freeway the designation of I-87. For one thing, it's a redundancy (which is allowed, but still unnecessary). And, it's a routing that is 90+% east-west and at most 10% north-south. They should have assigned it I-46 or I-48. That would have fit perfectly into pattern and been an identifier unique to this routing, rather than sharing a number with a better known interstate that serves New York City, Newburgh, Albany, and the Adirondacks.
Aside from its duplicate number, the southern Interstate 87 (existing and future) is hardly an anomaly of the Interstate system. Interstate 85 runs more east-west than north-south. Interstates 26 and 82 are more north-south than east-west. Interstates 24, 44, 59, 74 and 81 are diagonal, and plenty of east-west Interstates have north-south segments and vice versa. I don't mind the Interstate 87 designation. Leave the potential 46 and 48 designations for the US 412 future Interstate corridor.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2023, 01:42:35 PM
Aside from its duplicate number, the southern Interstate 87 (existing and future) is hardly an anomaly of the Interstate system. Interstate 85 runs more east-west than north-south. Interstates 26 and 82 are more north-south than east-west. Interstates 24, 44, 59, 74 and 81 are diagonal, and plenty of east-west Interstates have north-south segments and vice versa. I don't mind the Interstate 87 designation. Leave the potential 46 and 48 designations for the US 412 future Interstate corridor.
While that's true, this one is almost entirely east-west and hardly diagonal at all. A perfect candidate for an even numbered designation.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on March 29, 2023, 01:45:52 PM
While that's true, this one is almost entirely east-west and hardly diagonal at all. A perfect candidate for an even numbered designation.
Will go north-south when it reaches Williamston. I don't mind, routes are not perfect north-south, east-west.
The route is 120 miles east to west, and 70 miles north to south. While I agree an east-west designation would have worked better, it's not like fully east-west with no north-south component. The initial "north-south" planned for I-587, is a good example for a fully east-west route. Thankfully, NCDOT went ahead and posted east-west for that one. North-south made no sense there. For I-87, there is some north-south gain. North to Virginia, south to North Carolina, etc.
And all of US-17 is sign-posted for north-south.
Does VA have any plans in the next ten years to extend the freeway from VA 165 all the way down to the border? I know there is a light at Grassfield Parkway and south of there it is mostly a rural 4 lane highway bypassing the old US 17, which is now a trail. I hope NC can finish widening US 17 in Eastern NC. US 17 connects Camp Lejeune with the Navy Bases in the Hampton Roads Area.
Quote from: Jaxrunner on March 29, 2023, 07:46:47 PM
Does VA have any plans in the next ten years to extend the freeway from VA 165 all the way down to the border? I know there is a light at Grassfield Parkway and south of there it is mostly a rural 4 lane highway bypassing the old US 17, which is now a trail. I hope NC can finish widening US 17 in Eastern NC. US 17 connects Camp Lejeune with the Navy Bases in the Hampton Roads Area.
The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) recognizes the existence of I-87 and did develop a cost estimate - around $400 million (I’m assuming that also included some upgrades to the I-464 interchange), however there is no currently funded projects to construct these. The city also recognizes its existence and wants it in the future, though I’m not sure how they are going to incorporate the Grassfield area with constructing interchanges at those two signals.
The city of Chesapeake embarked on a major $350 million project to widen the 2 lane Dominion Blvd north of VA-165 that had a drawbridge over the Elizabeth River to a fully controlled access 4 lane freeway with a high rise bridge (paid with tolls) that was wrapped up around 6 years ago. That project also included widening US-17 between the new 2005 alignment and VA-165 to a four lane divided highway that kept two signalized intersections at Grassfield Pkwy and Scenic Pkwy. Both of these massive projects were fully built and managed by the city - not VDOT. The freeway portion north of VA-165 appears to be built to full interstate standards (full control of access, 46 foot median, 10 foot outside shoulder, 4 foot inside, etc.) and has a 60 mph design speed. The signage needs to be fixed significantly - but that’s a minor fix.
As for the new 2005 alignment of US-17 between a mile or so north of US-17 Business and the North Carolina state line (that did widen about 2 miles of the old road), it is a limited access divided highway with access breaks only at intersecting roadways. There are no traffic signals, the design speed is 60 mph, although driving it easily feels like a 70 mph rural interstate outside of the intersections.
The closest thing to an upgrade as of now, would be the planned interchange about a mile north of the state line to accommodate a new “mega site” industrial park. It wouldn’t close any existing intersections though - only provide a new access point. This is a good thing though - they originally planned a signalized intersection (by using an existing limited access break for the farm). By constructing a full interchange, you are preserving the free-follow nature of US-17 and its future upgradability. The city maintains all of US-17 south of I-64 (not VDOT) so they would be in charge of constructing this.
Here is a post I made a little while back in regard to this new interchange:
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2023, 10:46:34 AM
Quote
And the city (Chesapeake) is planning a mega site development near the North Carolina border, with the prospect of the interstate running alongside it in mind, but is planning to construct an at-grade signalized intersection on rural US-17 using one of the authorized breaks in limited access right of way currently used for farm access.
City Council approved this development last month and according to the latest report (https://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/planning/FWFarm/PLN-PUDC-2022-001+City+Council+Package.pdf), the plan now calls for a grade-separated interchange to be constructed along US-17 for this "megasite" development. This would be located within the first mile or so of US-17 in Virginia just north of the North Carolina state line.
QuoteThe following improvements will be provided as part of this development:
I. Primary Site Access- A grade-separated interchange will be constructed for the primary development access off Route 17. The final location will be approved by the City and VDOT to insure spacing of roadways consistent with access management plans and principles. These improvements will be constructed and operational prior to the first certificate of occupancy within the development unless approved otherwise by the Director of Development and Permits as a result of an approved TIA. The interchange will include the following:
i. Sufficient number of lanes on the overpass (grade separation) to provide a LOS D or better.
ii. Ramp lane quantities, Route 17 mainline diverge and merge lane lengths, and geometry in accordance with a City approved TIA and VDOT criteria.
iii. Signalization at the intersection of the access road overpass and the southbound on and off ramps as warranted.
iv. Accommodations for pedestrian access and connectivity to the greatest extent possible.
All in all, I don’t see I-87 in Virginia getting completed any time soon, let alone the next decade. However, there is growth happening in northeastern North Carolina and traffic volumes are steadily rising on US-17. Camden County is planning to construct thousands of homes south of the border, and there’s decent development occurring down in Elizabeth City off the US-17 bypass interchange at NC-343. This, paired with the eventual construction on the North Carolina side of I-87 up to the border, especially once the entire corridor is built out to Raleigh in 20-30 years, may pressure VDOT to close the 13 mile “gap” in an otherwise fully controlled access 70 mph highway to I-95 South and Raleigh. But this is likely a couple decades away.
When upgrades eventually do come, they shouldn’t be too difficult. A few interchanges at some of the crossroads will be needed, along with a couple of more complex urban designs near Grassfield Pkwy and Scenic Pkwy. The cross-section would need to be widened slightly (the right shoulder is only 8 foot instead of the required 10), but otherwise meets interstate standards. It’s just a matter of funding… if Chesapeake and/or VDOT was smart, they would piecemeal it starting north and working south, little individual interchange projects instead of a single large-expense upgrade.
Either way, again, 20 years out probably for completion. There are simply way higher priorities in the area, including a project on the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan to widen VA-168 to 6 lanes between I-464 and Hillcrest Pkwy, and a new / widened high rise bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway. The city is trying to also construct a new high rise bridge (65 foot vertical clearance, fixed span) over the same waterway along Centerville Turnpike that will cost over $300 million. Outside of the city’s scope (even though VA-168 is a city roadway technically, I would hope VDOT would oversee a major widening to a six lane urban freeway). VDOT is working on multi-billion dollar projects along I-64, I-664, and I-264, and eventually hopefully US-58.
NCDOT has advertised for the May letting of 2 pavement rehabilitation contracts on US 64 (Future I-87) in Edgecombe County. TIP Project 6041 is from SR 1225 (Kingsboro Road) to NC 33 while I-6042 covers NC 33 to the Martin County line. While US 64 for all of the second and the eastern end of the first is already Interstate standard, at least as far as shoulders are concerned, cross sections in the plans for the first contract could indicate shoulder widening for non-standard sections of the roadway. If someone with more experience reading plans wants to check this out, the plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2023%20Highway%20Letting/05-16-23/Plans%20and%20Proposals/EDGECOMBE_47990.3.1_I-6041_C204818/Standard%20PDF%20Files/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2023%20Highway%20Letting/05-16-23/Plans%20and%20Proposals/EDGECOMBE_47990.3.1_I-6041_C204818/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)
I can't speak for exactly what they're going to do - but if I had to guess, it's probably just resurfacing the existing pavement, with no shoulder widening.
You are correct that the eastern end of the project, then extending all the way east to US-17, is built to full interstate standards, but this entire project limits, plus west all the way to Knightdale, is older and has a substandard right shoulder.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2023, 11:47:16 PM
I can't speak for exactly what they're going to do - but if I had to guess, it's probably just resurfacing the existing pavement, with no shoulder widening.
You are correct that the eastern end of the project, then extending all the way east to US-17, is built to full interstate standards, but this entire project limits, plus west all the way to Knightdale, is older and has a substandard right shoulder.
On Sunday, I drove US 64 from Manteo to where it becomes I 87. In a portion of the construction zone, I saw stakes in the grass well to the side of where the shoulder ends. To me, this would imply that they're planning to widen the shoulders to interstate standards.
Quote from: Papa Emeritus on May 10, 2023, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2023, 11:47:16 PM
I can't speak for exactly what they're going to do - but if I had to guess, it's probably just resurfacing the existing pavement, with no shoulder widening.
You are correct that the eastern end of the project, then extending all the way east to US-17, is built to full interstate standards, but this entire project limits, plus west all the way to Knightdale, is older and has a substandard right shoulder.
On Sunday, I drove US 64 from Manteo to where it becomes I 87. In a portion of the construction zone, I saw stakes in the grass well to the side of where the shoulder ends. To me, this would imply that they're planning to widen the shoulders to interstate standards.
That's been the plan.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 11, 2023, 12:09:13 AM
Quote from: Papa Emeritus on May 10, 2023, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2023, 11:47:16 PM
I can't speak for exactly what they're going to do - but if I had to guess, it's probably just resurfacing the existing pavement, with no shoulder widening.
You are correct that the eastern end of the project, then extending all the way east to US-17, is built to full interstate standards, but this entire project limits, plus west all the way to Knightdale, is older and has a substandard right shoulder.
On Sunday, I drove US 64 from Manteo to where it becomes I 87. In a portion of the construction zone, I saw stakes in the grass well to the side of where the shoulder ends. To me, this would imply that they're planning to widen the shoulders to interstate standards.
That's been the plan.
That's the ultimate plan, but many recent repaving jobs along the US-17 / US-64 corridor do not represent this. They are merely surfacing projects with no shoulder widening.
Perhaps this one will actually be in the right direction though.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52888409287_93131a3bd8_o.jpg)
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on May 11, 2023, 09:31:56 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52888409287_93131a3bd8_o.jpg)
That's good to see they're actually including shoulder widening in this!
I'm not sure why projects have not. For example, US-17 Elizabeth City bypass was resurfaced two years ago, and while it's a nice ride, there's still only 4 ft paved shoulders.
If US-64 through Rocky Mount was upgraded, it would allow approximately 51 miles of freeway between I-95 and US-17 to be signed as I-87. Not to mention, the significant added safety benefits of having a full paved shoulder for emergency vehicles, disabled vehicles, greater margin for error at high speeds, etc. In particular, especially beneficial for a more urban freeway segment such as near Rocky Mount.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2023, 10:10:37 AM
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on May 11, 2023, 09:31:56 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52888409287_93131a3bd8_o.jpg)
That's good to see they're actually including shoulder widening in this!
I'm not sure why projects have not. For example, US-17 Elizabeth City bypass was resurfaced two years ago, and while it's a nice ride, there's still only 4 ft paved shoulders.
If US-64 through Rocky Mount was upgraded, it would allow approximately 51 miles of freeway between I-95 and US-17 to be signed as I-87. Not to mention, the significant added safety benefits of having a full paved shoulder for emergency vehicles, disabled vehicles, greater margin for error at high speeds, etc. In particular, especially beneficial for a more urban freeway segment such as near Rocky Mount.
This is what is happening, at least with the shoulders, assuming what is seen above takes place along the entire construction corridor. The project seen above (I-6046) starts at Exit 463, Red Oak, just to the west of I-95 and runs 14 miles to Kingsboro Road. Another project, just awarded and discussed above, goes from Kingsboro Road to NC 33 and includes the remaining section of 3' wide shoulders. There will still have to be other upgrades along US 64 though before they can sign it as I-87.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 11, 2023, 09:50:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 11, 2023, 10:10:37 AM
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on May 11, 2023, 09:31:56 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52888409287_93131a3bd8_o.jpg)
That's good to see they're actually including shoulder widening in this!
I'm not sure why projects have not. For example, US-17 Elizabeth City bypass was resurfaced two years ago, and while it's a nice ride, there's still only 4 ft paved shoulders.
If US-64 through Rocky Mount was upgraded, it would allow approximately 51 miles of freeway between I-95 and US-17 to be signed as I-87. Not to mention, the significant added safety benefits of having a full paved shoulder for emergency vehicles, disabled vehicles, greater margin for error at high speeds, etc. In particular, especially beneficial for a more urban freeway segment such as near Rocky Mount.
This is what is happening, at least with the shoulders, assuming what is seen above takes place along the entire construction corridor. The project seen above (I-6046) starts at Exit 463, Red Oak, just to the west of I-95 and runs 14 miles to Kingsboro Road. Another project, just awarded and discussed above, goes from Kingsboro Road to NC 33 and includes the remaining section of 3' wide shoulders. There will still have to be other upgrades along US 64 though before they can sign it as I-87.
Then there's the issue of US 17 and what happens across the state line. My guess is that no more upgrades will be made until VA decides on a route that will not disrupt the swamp. Continuing north on US 17 should be a no-brainer, but the Dominion Blvd area is so built up that an expensive undertaking will be required to complete I-87. And cutting east to VA 168 is a nonstarter, especially because of the environmentally sensitive areas that the interstate would have to cut through, even though VA 168 is freeway-grade; more likely, it may end up an I-x87, if any such designation is ever considered. We may not know for several more years, if not decades.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 11, 2023, 09:50:41 PM
This is what is happening, at least with the shoulders, assuming what is seen above takes place along the entire construction corridor. The project seen above (I-6046) starts at Exit 463, Red Oak, just to the west of I-95 and runs 14 miles to Kingsboro Road. Another project, just awarded and discussed above, goes from Kingsboro Road to NC 33 and includes the remaining section of 3' wide shoulders. There will still have to be other upgrades along US 64 though before they can sign it as I-87.
I'm going to have to get down there and check it out in the near future... what other upgrades are to take place? To make it at least up to minimum interstate standards in order to be sign-posted.
Quote from: Henry on May 11, 2023, 10:16:24 PM
Then there's the issue of US 17 and what happens across the state line. My guess is that no more upgrades will be made until VA decides on a route that will not disrupt the swamp. Continuing north on US 17 should be a no-brainer, but the Dominion Blvd area is so built up that an expensive undertaking will be required to complete I-87. And cutting east to VA 168 is a nonstarter, especially because of the environmentally sensitive areas that the interstate would have to cut through, even though VA 168 is freeway-grade; more likely, it may end up an I-x87, if any such designation is ever considered. We may not know for several more years, if not decades.
While this is certainly an issue to be considered in the long term, it wouldn't impact NCDOT sign-posting I-87 between I-95 and US-17.
I feel like it reasonably would extend north along US-17. While the Dominion Blvd corridor between Grassfield Pkwy and Scenic Pkwy is being developed, there is still an adequate enough space to "squeeze" one or two urban interchanges in that area. The physical roadway itself still maintains limited access and has a large 50-60 ft median, and apart from the intersections, has an interstate highway cross-section (fully paved shoulders, wide lanes, 60 mph design speed, etc.).
Outside of this under a mile stretch between Scenic Pkwy and Grassfield Pkwy, the rest of the roadway to south is easily upgradable and limited access, and north of there is already interstate standard freeway.
I-87 will extend north along US-17 from North Carolina and tie into I-64. I'm not holding my breath about a connector between VA-168 and US-17, even though it would be a viable route to have. It doesn't make sense at all for the main I-87 to follow, and VA-168, while freeway, would need upgrades in areas to meet interstate standards. Not to mention the first two miles in Virginia, which arguably need to be upgraded anyways, due to Outer Banks peak traffic in the summer.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on May 11, 2023, 09:31:56 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52888409287_93131a3bd8_o.jpg)
Curious... is the shoulder widening project only from I-95 to near Tarboro, or does it also include the one from the current end of I-87 in Knightdale towards I-95 as well?
Did some field verification yesterday. The shoulder widening is currently only taking place between Thomas Rd and Kingsboro Rd. I did not see any sediment fencing anywhere else throughout the project limits. It looks like the shoulder widening was an addendum to the original contract (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/06-21-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/NASH_47995.3.1_I-6046_C204396/Edgecombe_Nash%20I-6046%20C204396%20Addendum%20No.1.pdf) and the "clearing and grubbing for widening" line item is only for 6.5 acres. At 10 ft. wide, that is approximately 2.68 miles per direction, which is around the distance between those two roads.
I could be wrong, but I suspect the shoulder widening is pretty limited.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52891401101_ca2cee2e5b_z.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52891401101_48becefd12_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52890833412_e2f53fdd09_z.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52890833412_e324c68fe4_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52891568339_fdfbecf8e5_z.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52891568339_9ec4791e6b_k.jpg)
Crappy evening photos with bug splatter from 64, but showing what appears to be the westbound limit of the shoulder widening at the Thomas Rd. overpass.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52918340731_275d0165b3_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52918340736_9ac2abbb2d_c.jpg)
NCDOT press release about pavement rehabilitation along US 64 in Edgecombe County, includes 'some' shoulder widening, to be completed by the fall of 2024:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-05-31-us-64-edgecombe-repaving.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-05-31-us-64-edgecombe-repaving.aspx)
^ Of the 20 mile segment being resurfaced, 12 miles is already built to full interstate standards with paved shoulders. Only the western 8 miles is older freeway with reduced 4 ft shoulders. Hopefully, if they're smart, they will widen those 8 miles to include full width shoulders. I'm not holding my breath though, given past precedent.
Full width shoulders not only bring the highway up to interstate standards, they provide a safer roadway by allowing a vehicle to safely come to a stop (on pavement).
If they're doing something similar to NYSDOT's 1R resurfacing projects, they might not be able to. Our 1R projects have to stay in the existing pavement width; anything that goes outside bumps the project into a 2R project, which costs a lot more in terms of both money and staff time, because then a lot of other things need to be addressed too. If NCDOT has anything similar to NYSDOT's 1R/2R/3R system for paving projects, that might be why they don't widen the shoulders with the resurfacing.
A section of US-64 East between Robersonville and Everetts will close on June 15 for a major bridge rehabilitation project over the Huskanaw Swamp. It's expected to reopen at the end of September.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-12-us-64-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-12-us-64-closure.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on June 12, 2023, 03:28:37 PM
A section of US-64 East between Robersonville and Everetts will close on June 15 for a major bridge rehabilitation project over the Huskanaw Swamp. It's expected to reopen at the end of September.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-12-us-64-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-12-us-64-closure.aspx)
Ouch. This section of US 64 opened in 1997, so the bridge is not really old. Closing the road in the summer, obstructing beach-bound traffic, is a large deal.
It appears this segment of US 64 is already up to Interstate Standards, so this bridge rehabilitation project will not be part of the corridor's long-term upgrades.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 12, 2023, 07:05:07 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 12, 2023, 03:28:37 PM
A section of US-64 East between Robersonville and Everetts will close on June 15 for a major bridge rehabilitation project over the Huskanaw Swamp. It's expected to reopen at the end of September.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-12-us-64-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-12-us-64-closure.aspx)
Ouch. This section of US 64 opened in 1997, so the bridge is not really old. Closing the road in the summer, obstructing beach-bound traffic, is a large deal.
You would think they do this during the winter, when there's less traffic. Traffic on US-64 is certainly seasonal, and is much higher during the summer.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 12, 2023, 10:48:48 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 12, 2023, 07:05:07 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 12, 2023, 03:28:37 PM
A section of US-64 East between Robersonville and Everetts will close on June 15 for a major bridge rehabilitation project over the Huskanaw Swamp. It's expected to reopen at the end of September.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-12-us-64-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-12-us-64-closure.aspx)
Ouch. This section of US 64 opened in 1997, so the bridge is not really old. Closing the road in the summer, obstructing beach-bound traffic, is a large deal.
You would think they do this during the winter, when there's less traffic. Traffic on US-64 is certainly seasonal, and is much higher during the summer.
According to the NCDOT Real Time Traffic site, the roadway is now closed:
Incident 665954
Location
- US-64, Near NC-903
- East of Robersonville / Heading East
- Martin County
Construction: Road Closed with Detour
Bridge Rehabilitation/Preservation - Joint repair, deck repair, concrete wearing surface.
Expected impact to traffic is Medium.
Detour
From US HWY 64 East take Exit No. 502 to NC903, to US 64 Alt, to US HWY 64 East
NCDOT has announced the awarding of a pavement rehabilitation contract for US 64 (Future I-87) in Nash County. While shoulder rehabilitation is part of the project, no mention is made about any interstate standard shoulder widening:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-08-09-us-64-repaving-nash.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-08-09-us-64-repaving-nash.aspx)
Such a complete rehab like this just seems like a depressing setback if shoulder widening is excluded. So much needs to be done, any upgrades need to get rolling on this road. 42 def seems to be the priority. Be nice to at least get this out to 95.
Quote from: nerdom on August 09, 2023, 11:32:03 PM
Such a complete rehab like this just seems like a depressing setback if shoulder widening is excluded. So much needs to be done, any upgrades need to get rolling on this road. 42 def seems to be the priority. Be nice to at least get this out to 95.
It definitely is disappointing... all of the pavement rehabilitation projects that have taken place along fully controlled-access portions of US-70, US-64, US-264, and US-17 over the last 10 years should have included full paved shoulder widening to 10 ft. It would cost slightly more upfront, but it would bring significant portions up to interstate standards. If all of the recent US-64 pavement projects included proper widening, I-87 could be signed for a good portion east and west of I-95 once projects wrap up in the next few years.
US-64 in general, between Raleigh and Tarboro, would be relatively easy to bring up to the most basic interstate standards (minimum upgrades), and would allow nearly 90 miles of I-87 to exist (although upgrades near Nashville may require bridge replacements) between I-40 and US-17 in Williamston. The rest would be fully dependent on US-17 upgrades at that point, and may get the ball rolling. Mainly just connecting the freeway bypass segments with upgrades to the divided highway portions or new alignments.
According to https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html, it will be at least 10 years before any upgrades come to segments 3-5 on the US 64 corridor. Thus, it is unlikely that the Interstate 87 designation will be extended eastward any time soon. As for the Nash County pavement rehabilitation project, I think it would be foolish not to widen the shoulders of the roadway to Interstate Standard widths, since the corridor will become part of Interstate 87 in the future.
Can confirm, through Google Maps Street View images from June, that a portion of US 64 east of Rocky Mount has had its shoulders widened to interstate standards as part of the pavement rehab project going on east of I-95. The widened shoulders run from the Kingsboro Road exit to just after the Thomas Road bridge, not quite to the next exit, and vice versa. No other shoulder work is observed along US 64 further west.
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87constgsv623a.jpg)
I emailed NCDOT about removing an incorrect shoulder shield sign on New Bern Ave at I-440 that reads I-495 however that and faded overheads and trash strewn all around the overpass haven't been addressed.
Garner's Northbound US401 approaching I-40 has derelict overheads also. Come on NCDOT.
That would be this sign, right?: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7916965,-78.5858589,3a,75y,35.32h,90.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqcEbwpfhT-uJrnYQMWSh4w!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2023, 01:08:03 PM
That would be this sign, right?: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7916965,-78.5858589,3a,75y,35.32h,90.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqcEbwpfhT-uJrnYQMWSh4w!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
Guess they would rather put up To US 64 West signs at the interchange than sign West Business 64 along I-440 back to US 64 at the Knightdale Bypass.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2023, 01:08:03 PM
That would be this sign, right?: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7916965,-78.5858589,3a,75y,35.32h,90.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqcEbwpfhT-uJrnYQMWSh4w!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
Yes that's the one.
Because of all the breakneck freeway construction in Southern Wake Co. Raleigh's central and Northern freeways are looking pretty bad. Dozens of sun-faded overhead signs need replacing. Kinda dumpy looking.