Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[sprjus4]

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.

[Mapmikey]

There was a Martinsville and Roanoke sign in Greensboro long before I73 came along.

[sprjus4]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[sprjus4]

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

[Beltway]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

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?

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. 

[Beltway]

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.

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.

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Roadsguy]

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 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.)

[Beltway]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[NE2]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

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.

[sprjus4]

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 

Maybe by the time they post it, you'll actually offer something productive on this thread.

[Beltway]

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.

[froggie]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Strider]

Beltway vs. sprjus 4 argument is back!  .

Will you two kindly put your differences and try to get along and have a honest discussion? 

[Mr. ENC]

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)

[jcarte29]

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

[Beltway]

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.

[Beltway]

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.