News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

Started by LM117, July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sprjus4

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.


tolbs17

I think the prison camp rd interchange being small is keeping it from meeting interstate stardards.

sprjus4

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?

tolbs17

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.

sprjus4

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...?

tolbs17


sprjus4

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.

tolbs17

#1757
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

sprjus4

Quote
And I don't know what "widen ramps" mean.
Realign the ramp with a wider radius?

tolbs17

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.

froggie

Do the ramps have a 16ft width?  If not, that may be what they're referring to.

tolbs17

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.

sprjus4

Which interchanges specifically? Looking at the NC-125 one, it is 16 ft or greater.

tolbs17

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....

tolbs17

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

sprjus4

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 AccessTravel TimeAverage Speed
64 miles100%                 55 mins     70.0 MPH

Hampton Roads to Raleigh Routes
- via US-58 / I-95



Distance  % Limited AccessTravel TimeAverage Speed
178 miles75%                  2 hr 41 mins66.2 MPH

- via US-17 / US-64 (Proposed I-87)


Distance  % Limited AccessTravel TimeAverage Speed
194 miles66%                  2 hr 57 mins65.6 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

sprjus4

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.

tolbs17

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.

sprjus4

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?

tolbs17

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!

sprjus4



sprjus4

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.

sparker

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.         

Strider

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.