Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[sprjus4]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

[sprjus4]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Beltway]

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.
   

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[NE2]

I-87 and I-49 South are both porky indirect routes that primarily serve points along the way.

[froggie]

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.  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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.  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.

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.

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

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-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.

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.
. . . . . . .

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.

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[LM117]

http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/01/29/Area-I-87-funds-missing-from-new-DOT-road-plan.html

[goobnav]

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, .

[goobnav]

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.

[goobnav]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[goobnav]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[goobnav]

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

[goobnav]

And USA Today:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/01/15/fastest-growing-and-shrinking-states-closer-look/1019429001/

[vdeane]

Are those articles factoring in gains from immigration?

[goobnav]

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

[Beltway]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[goobnav]

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.

[NE2]

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.