AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)  (Read 192633 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8050
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: June 15, 2021, 08:08:10 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1775 on: June 03, 2021, 06:19:25 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. 
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6208
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:55:59 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1776 on: June 03, 2021, 07:06:01 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.
Logged

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 730
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: June 15, 2021, 01:12:39 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1777 on: June 03, 2021, 08:33:39 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.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6208
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:55:59 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1778 on: June 03, 2021, 09:16:28 PM »

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.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:08 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1779 on: June 04, 2021, 09:43:53 PM »

Wouldn't something like this be perfect through Williamston instead of something that's bland? I tend to see these more in other states.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6208
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:55:59 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1780 on: June 04, 2021, 10:11:26 PM »

Wouldn't something like this 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?
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:08 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1781 on: June 05, 2021, 12:59:45 AM »

Wouldn't something like this 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.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11717
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:29:15 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1782 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.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:08 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1783 on: June 05, 2021, 12:40:45 PM »

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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8050
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: June 15, 2021, 08:08:10 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1784 on: June 05, 2021, 03:18:41 PM »

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. 
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11717
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:29:15 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1785 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.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:08 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1786 on: June 05, 2021, 11:01:30 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?
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11717
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:29:15 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1787 on: June 05, 2021, 11:10:09 PM »

Nope.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6208
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:55:59 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1788 on: June 06, 2021, 12:47:01 AM »

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.
Logged

cowboy_wilhelm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 191
  • Location: Raleigh
  • Last Login: June 08, 2021, 09:32:50 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1789 on: June 06, 2021, 12:25:23 PM »

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.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:08 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1790 on: June 14, 2021, 07:02:55 PM »

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.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6208
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:55:59 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1791 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.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:08 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1792 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.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:08 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1793 on: June 14, 2021, 07:26:21 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
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6208
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:55:59 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1794 on: June 14, 2021, 07:37:50 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.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:08 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1795 on: June 14, 2021, 07:46:22 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
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6208
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:55:59 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #1796 on: June 14, 2021, 09:53:16 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.
Logged

 


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.