Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[Beltway]

If VA ever decides to upgrade US 58 with or without tolls, I-87 will be an even less valuable as an option to Norfolk and Virginia Beach for traffic originating from I-95 and points west.

I do agree with this, and ultimately would rather see US-58 the main interstate route out to I-95 South in a perfect world, but VDOT's recent study indicated it would cost at least $2+ billion, and I'd say the chances of any major upgrade is slim to none, especially considering the billions of dollars of unfunded I-81, I-64, and I-95 widenings, and the entire I-73 corridor that will be prioritized over that.

With the kind of current government in Virginia?

As much as you and I seem to be in agreement that there will be a whole slew of problems (including egregious tax increases) if they are not voted out next time, one thing that is likely is large tax increases, which in highways would probably be in the $500 to $1,000 million per year range, and that could quite possibly include advancing a US-58 Interstate highway at least between I-95 and I-664/I-64, and I-95 widening south of US-58 to N.C.

and completing a Hampton Roads interstate link to I-95 South and Raleigh,

There you go again ...

[sprjus4]

With the kind of current government in Virginia?

As much as you and I seem to be in agreement that there will be a whole slew of problems (including egregious tax increases) if they are not voted out next time, one thing that is likely is large tax increases, which in highways would probably be in the $500 to $1,000 million per year range, and that could quite possibly include advancing a US-58 Interstate highway at least between I-95 and I-664/I-64, and I-95 widening south of US-58 to N.C.

If such is desired, I'm all for it. My point however is that with the mere concept of I-87, it may be more preferred to simply tackle 12 miles of limited-access US-17 rather than 60 miles of non-limited-access US-58 that would require at least 20 miles on new location and just get the job done and let North Carolina deal with the heavier lifting, which they seem to be able to handle more efficiently than Virginia when it comes to new corridors.

Assuming this 60 mile upgrade of US-58 to interstate standards is constructed, would I-73 have been completed, and I-64 and I-81 also completed to 6-lanes, and potentially parts of I-95 to 8-lanes assuming the corruption of the Northam administration is replaced with a more proactive one who would oversee general purpose expansion?

There you go again ...

Is it not an interstate link if completed? It would be the most direct interstate highway corridor between the destinations, after all I-64 and I-95 is far longer.

[Beltway]

My point however is that with the mere concept of I-87, it may be more preferred to simply tackle 12 miles of limited-access US-17 rather than 60 miles of non-limited-access US-58 that would require at least 20 miles on new location and just get the job done

Apples and oranges.  People will continue to use US-58 and I-95.

There are those stubborn 21 or 22 extra miles that they think they can overcome by 2045 or beyond, but they can't in mileage and unlikely in significant time improvement.

[hotdogPi]

Beltway: You're complaining about higher taxes, but as the extra money will be put to good use, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Beltway]

Beltway: You're complaining about higher taxes, but as the extra money will be put to good use, it shouldn't be a problem.

Not if it ultimately drives businesses out of the state.  Something like VA I-73 would be easily justifiable if it was a $1 billion project.  $4 billion when a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves?  Hard IMO to justify at any taxation level.

[sprjus4]

There are those stubborn 21 or 22 extra miles that they think they can overcome by 2045 or beyond, but they can't in mileage and unlikely in significant time improvement.

Mileage wise, at most 3 to 4 miles by eliminating a jog south of Windsor, and if they were to build a new alignment over the Roanoke River wetlands west of Williamston, could get about 10 miles reduced. It's not impossible to reduce the mileage, though more than likely will end up just following the existing corridor through the wetlands and a slightly (1-3 miles) more direct alignment to the jog.

Time wise, already refuted there's no savings, but there's no loss. You're going to get to the I-95 / US-64 interchange in the same amount of time taking US-58 vs. I-87, give or take a couple minutes. The route one takes is merely up to the following preferences - 55-60 mph for half the trip vs. 70 mph thruout, urban congestion and signals thru Suffolk plus congested interstates / freeways to get to Suffolk vs. free-flow trip immediately out of the area, arterial for half the trip vs. freeway thruout, 55 miles of I-95 congestion during peak weekends vs. avoid I-95 entirely, etc.

People will continue to use US-58 and I-95.

If I-87 is completed, no traffic will be shifted, and the majority will continue using US-58? I would say it's more of a 50-50 split, if not more. An interstate highway is far more attractive to a motorist, especially long-distance, over arterial. I've dealt with US-58 and US-17 arterial for over a decade. I would gladly drive the extra distance with no time loss to be on a 70 mph interstate highway throughout right out of the area, plus less traffic, and avoids I-95.

Was the proposed US-460 vanity to I-64? It would have added 15 miles to a trip plus a toll (proposed about $4, or 20-30 miles of gas) from Norfolk to Ashland. I would gladly use it to avoid I-64, plus as a connection to I-85 South, even with additional mileage and a toll. You were a heavy advocate of this road.

[sprjus4]

Beltway: You're complaining about higher taxes, but as the extra money will be put to good use, it shouldn't be a problem.

Not if it ultimately drives businesses out of the state.  Something like VA I-73 would be easily justifiable if it was a $1 billion project.  $4 billion when a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves?  Hard IMO to justify at any taxation level.

Probably closer to $6 or $8 billion at this rate. The Martinsville Southern Connector was $600 - $800 million alone for 6 miles of freeway.

[Beltway]

There are those stubborn 21 or 22 extra miles that they think they can overcome by 2045 or beyond, but they can't in mileage and unlikely in significant time improvement.

Mileage wise, at most 3 to 4 miles by eliminating a jog south of Windsor, and if they were to build a new alignment over the Roanoke River wetlands west of Williamston, could get about 10 miles reduced. It's not impossible to reduce the mileage, though more than likely will end up just following the existing corridor through the wetlands and a slightly (1-3 miles) more direct alignment to the jog.

This has been covered ad infinitum.  They are not going to shorten more than 1 or 2 miles at most.  Read their feasibility study.

20+ miles will not be attractive to motorists, even less so for trucks.

Was the proposed US-460 vanity to I-64?

That serves the westward US-460 and everything Richmond-Petersburg south of the James River, and several other purposes, and US-460 itself is an outmoded 4-lane undivided highway (excepting about 12 intersections with left turn lanes) which needs to either be fully reconstructed or bypassed.

[sprjus4]

20 miles will not be attractive to motorists, even less so for trucks.

You're so focused on the mileage, and nothing but the mileage. Interstate vs. arterial has advantages that overcome mileage, and the fact the travel times are similar along both US-58 and I-87 doesn't make US-58 any faster once its completed.

Say a trip from Richmond to Roanoke, or Norfolk to I-81 South... One could take US-460 throughout the state, arterial highway, 25-35 miles shorter. Then there's I-64 and I-81, which while longer distance, provide similar travel times and are far more attractive over US-460 for every other advantage an interstate vs. arterial has. Higher speeds, high quality design, limited-access, no signals, urban areas, etc.

The only time I've utilized US-460 was on a trip between Lynchburg and Roanoke. I've done the Norfolk to I-81 South trip numerous times, and have utilized I-64 and I-81 every time. US-460 wasn't even an option I had considered.

If everybody was mileage strict, surely traffic counts on I-64 would be lower and US-460 would have higher volumes. The majority of the traffic on I-64 between Richmond and I-81 is bound to I-81 and not continuing on west. I-64 has 40,000 AADT east of I-81, and 8,000 AADT west of I-81.

That serves the westward US-460 and everything Richmond-Petersburg south of the James River, and several other purposes, and US-460 itself is an outmoded 4-lane undivided highway (excepting about 12 intersections with left turn lanes) which needs to either be fully reconstructed or bypassed.

An upgraded US-17 would...
Serve the southward US-17 and NC-11 including New Bern, Jacksonville, Wilmington, Greenville, Kinston, and everything Hampton Roads south of I-264 and I-64.

The idea of a US-460 serving as a routing for a Norfolk to I-95 North, or I-64 West movement then would be considered "vanity" by you (which would be its largest use despite the additional mileage & toll) though you don't have an issue with the direct US-460 corridor being improved itself, a 4-lane roadway with 10,000 AADT that is generally adequate. Is this the same rationale when it comes to the I-87 concept? Is US-17 being improved alone "vanity"?

[Beltway]

22 miles will not be attractive to motorists, even less so for trucks.

You're so focused on the mileage, and nothing but the mileage. Interstate vs. arterial has advantages that overcome mileage, and the fact the travel times are similar along both US-58 and I-87 doesn't make US-58 any faster once its completed.

You keep acting like VI-87 will be completed in the next few years, when it would be at least 2045 if ever!!

You also keep ignoring the fact that 56 miles of the current route is handled by I-95, and that of the 69 miles of US-58 that 26 miles is freeway and 7 miles is expressway; and pretending that nothing will be done to upgrade those highways over the next 25+ years.

Sorry, it won't overcome 22 miles.

The idea of a US-460 serving as a routing for a Norfolk to I-95 North, or I-64 West movement then would be considered "vanity" by you (which would be its largest use despite the additional mileage & toll) though you don't have an issue with the direct US-460 corridor being improved itself, a 4-lane roadway with 10,000 AADT that is generally adequate.

The US-460 freeway had 5 separate purposes. 

Even looking only at the purpose for connecting to I-95 North and I-64 West, that was a $1.4 billion project to build 59 miles of freeway between I-95 and the Suffolk Bypass, and considering how much it is costing to expand the Hampton Roads bridge-tunnels ($3.7 billion for I-64, probably about the same for I-664), that in and of itself is a very worthwhile project to connect I-95 to South Hampton Roads (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Suffolk) directly without having to cross the Hampton Roads estuary and thus removing traffic or forestalling traffic increases on the bridge-tunnels, in addition to drivers not having to deal with the bridge-tunnels.

[sprjus4]

Even looking only at the purpose for connecting to I-95 North and I-64 West, that was a $1.4 billion project to build 59 miles of freeway between I-95 and the Suffolk Bypass, and considering how much it is costing to expand the Hampton Roads bridge-tunnels ($3.7 billion for I-64, probably about the same for I-664), that in and of itself is a very worthwhile project to connect I-95 to South Hampton Roads (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Suffolk) directly without having to cross the Hampton Roads estuary and thus removing traffic or forestalling traffic increases on the bridge-tunnels, in addition to drivers not having to deal with the bridge-tunnels.

I agree... but you're now contradicting yourself here. You claim an interstate corridor along US-17 and US-64 that adds 20 miles to a trip is "vanity" due to added mileage, merely a single gallon of gas for the average passenger vehicle ($2.50 for example), yet an interstate corridor along US-460 would also add 20 miles to a trip, -plus- a toll, which in total is over two gallons of gas for the average passenger vehicle (at least $5.00 for example) if not more depending on how high the toll is. Under your definition, the US-460 freeway for the purpose of connecting Hampton Roads to I-95 North would be "vanity". In reality though, both corridors have minor additional expenses for passenger vehicles, would supplement the existing I-64 and US-58 corridors, and attract traffic from those corridors. A completed US-460 freeway would also provide an interstate corridor from Hampton Roads to I-85 South, though, again, you would consider this "vanity" due to 20 additional miles, and travel time being similar to existing US-58.

Sorry, it won't overcome 22 miles.

and pretending that nothing will be done to upgrade those highways over the next 25+ years.

I-64 HRBT expansion to 8-lanes, I-64 widening to Richmond to 6-lanes, I-64 HRB widening to 6-lanes, I-664 MMMBT expansion to 8-lanes, etc.

You also keep ignoring the fact that 54 miles of the current route is handled by I-95,

The only segment that is posted along at 70 mph along the entire route.

and that of the 69 miles of US-58 that 22 miles is freeway and 6 miles is expressway;

All of which is posted at 60 mph or below.

[Beltway]

I agree... but you're now contradicting yourself here.

I'm not contradicting anything, you're just playing word games to try to justify your pet highway project.

The US-460 Freeway had 5 separate justifications, with connecting Richmond to South Hampton Roads without crossing the Hampton Roads estuary being only one of them.  Even then it wasn't being proposed to be an Interstate highway, although it would have been built to Interstate standards.

The existing highway is not built even to modern rural arterial standards, and cannot be upgraded to such without spending at least 60% of the cost of building a completely new alignment, and that would be about 80% if bypasses were built at the 3 biggest towns.  So we could call this 59 mile new highway an arterial bypass of the 6 towns along the route, plus a developed area of the city of Suffolk.

[sprjus4]

I'm not contradicting anything, you're just playing word games to try to justify your pet highway project.

20 additional miles + a toll, and bypasses a congested segment of I-64 and I-664 which will see major upgrades in the next 25+ years. You've called this "vanity".

The US-460 Freeway had 5 separate justifications, with connecting Richmond to South Hampton Roads without crossing the Hampton Roads estuary being only one of them.

What were the other 4?

The existing highway is not built even to modern rural arterial standards, and cannot be upgraded to such without spending at least 60% of the cost of building a completely new alignment, and that would be about 80% if bypasses were built at the 3 biggest towns.

The only real merit this roadway had was to act as a supplemental route to I-64, and to provide an additional interstate-grade connection from Hampton Roads to Richmond, I-64, and I-95. $1.4 billion would not spent on a 59 mile freeway to bypass a substandard 4-lane roadway that sees 10,000 AADT for that reason alone. If that was the case, a decent amount of Virginia's arterial mileage is substandard in roadway width, even if it has a median, and billions would be invested to modernize it or relocate portions of it. The roadway itself is fairly adequate as it is for the purposes it serves, at least enough that $1.4 billion wouldn't be spent for the sole purpose of providing an arterial bypass. The concept of providing that supplemental route, providing congestion relief to I-64, and attracting more traffic, despite the additional mileage was the primary driver behind the roadway and the possibility of any large-scale funding in today's day and age for Virginia construction.

[Beltway]

I'm not contradicting anything, you're just playing word games to try to justify your pet highway project.

20 additional miles + a toll, and bypasses a congested segment of I-64 and I-664 which will see major upgrades in the next 25+ years. You've called this "vanity".

Certainly did not.   The contract that The Punk canceled was from 2012, before any major upgrades were approved on the bridge-tunnels.  The project would have been completed in 2017.

Computing on the downtowns of Richmond and Norfolk, 6 miles farther on US-460.

The US-460 Freeway had 5 separate justifications, with connecting Richmond to South Hampton Roads without crossing the Hampton Roads estuary being only one of them.

What were the other 4?

-- US-460 is a STRAHNET route
-- US-460 is a 4-lane rural arterial route but that segment is not built to those standards (is undivided, narrow lanes, narrow shoulders, no town bypasses, several sections prone to flooding, slow average speed of 49 mph, supranormal crash rates)
-- permanent VMS signs on I-95 and I-64 provide time estimates for use of US-460 as an alternate to the Interstate system
-- part of the cross-state 4-lane US-460 corridor
-- local access in those counties
-- connects Tri-Cities (Petersburg, Hopewell, Colonial Heights) to South Hampton Roads
-- existing pavement needs major reconstruction (outer lanes have 80-year old concrete base that needs total replacement, a punishing ride to large vehicles)

Even in my Buick LaCrosse that has a great ride, I stay in the left lane except when someone needs to pass, even though I don't like riding right next to oncoming traffic.  I have been driving this highway for over 40 years, and a paving project only lasts a year or so before the outer lane becomes "bump-de-bump ... bump-bump ... de-de-bump ... ad nauseum".

Rebuilding that existing pavement is just throwing good money after bad.

Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET): This is a network of highways which are important to the United States' strategic defense policy and which provide defense access, continuity and emergency capabilities for defense purposes.

The only real merit this roadway had was to act as a supplemental route to I-64,

"Baloney"

Back when I lived in Petersburg this project would have been very helpful, and you don't use I-64 between there (or Hopewell and Colonial Heights) and South Hampton Roads.

sees 10,000 AADT

Up to 17,000 to 19,000 in places and 12-14% large trucks.

If that was the case, a decent amount of Virginia's arterial mileage is substandard in roadway width,

In the combination of STRAHNET and 4-lane arterial, the most substandard segment in the state.  Best place to start, you have to start somewhere.

$1.4 billion

$28 million per mile, a bargain killed by The Punk.  Result of an 8-year NEPA EIS/location study that was approved by a governor and CTB of his own party!!

Would have solved Petersburg-Suffolk once and for all time.
 

[NE2]

I'll take Punks over Nazis any day.

[sprjus4]

I'm not contradicting anything, you're just playing word games to try to justify your pet highway project.

20 additional miles + a toll, and bypasses a congested segment of I-64 and I-664 which will see major upgrades in the next 25+ years. You've called this "vanity".

Certainly did not. The contract that The Punk canceled was from 2012, before any major upgrades were approved on the bridge-tunnels.  The project would have been completed in 2017.

Would you support the revival of such a project nowadays after the HRBT expansion and I-64 widening projects are underway?

Computing on the downtowns of Richmond and Norfolk, 6 miles farther on US-460.

Norfolk <-> Richmond
I-64 - 93 miles; 93 minutes
US-460 and I-95 - 100 miles; 110 minutes

Existing US-460 is 50 miles, a US-460 on new location would be around 59 miles long, so add 9 miles to that figure. 16 miles added, plus a toll, the equivalent of at least an additional 30 miles in an average passenger vehicle.

The existing US-460 takes 50 miles; 58 minutes to travel. A relocated US-460 at 59 miles long with a posted 70 mph speed limit would take 51 minutes to travel.

That same downtown to downtown trip would take 109 miles; 103 minutes to travel along a relocated US-460, still 10 minutes slower than I-64 during non-congested periods. Of course, there's also congestion factors to take account, and could easily make US-460 faster. This same principal would apply to the I-87 concept, but since that is ignored, we'll ignore it for purposes of US-460 as well.

This is also assuming it's used from downtown to downtown. Suppose a traveler was headed between Downtown Norfolk and I-95 north of I-295...

I-64 and I-295 - 103 miles; 102 minutes
US-460 and I-95 - 117 miles; 120 minutes

14 miles farther on US-460.

Existing US-460 is 50 miles, a US-460 on new location would be around 59 miles long, so add 9 miles to that figure. 23 miles added, plus a toll, the equivalent of at least an additional 30 miles in an average passenger vehicle.

The existing US-460 takes 50 miles; 58 minutes to travel. A relocated US-460 at 59 miles long with a posted 70 mph speed limit would take 51 minutes to travel.

That same downtown to downtown trip would take 126 miles; 113 minutes to travel along a relocated US-460, still 11 minutes slower than I-64 during non-congested periods. Of course, there's also congestion factors to take account, and could easily make US-460 faster. This same principal would apply to the I-87 concept, but since that is ignored, we'll ignore it for purposes of US-460 as well.

-- US-460 is a STRAHNET route

US-17 is designated as a High Priority Corridor between I-64 and US-64.
US-17 is also designated as a STRAHNET corridor from Windsor to South Carolina.

-- US-460 is a 4-lane rural arterial route but that segment is not built to those standards (is undivided, narrow lanes, narrow shoulders, no town bypasses, several sections prone to flooding, slow average speed of 49 mph, supranormal crash rates)

Widen the shoulders to 10 feet, construct a center turn lane / concrete barrier, and shallow town bypasses. A similar project was recently completed along NC-24 between Fayetteville and Clinton, NC, the 2-lane road was expanded to 4-lanes divided by a 46 foot median, and 4 shallow town bypasses were constructed. The 28.6 mile project cost $252 million, approximately $8.8 million per mile.

-- permanent VMS signs on I-95 and I-64 provide time estimates for use of US-460 as an alternate to the Interstate system

Permanent VMS signs on I-64 provide time estimates for use of US-60 as an alternate to I-64 on the Peninsula... should this be improved to an interstate?

-- part of the cross-state 4-lane US-460 corridor

US-460 is already 4-lanes between Suffolk and Petersburg.

-- local access in those counties

Already accommodated by the existing 4-lane highway.

"Baloney"

Back when I lived in Petersburg this project would have been very helpful, and you don't use I-64 between there (or Hopewell and Colonial Heights) and South Hampton Roads.

I could say the same thing about my trips to North Carolina, whether it be inland or along the coast. Having a completed 70 mph freeway would be beneficial. This, apparently, is vanity though.

Up to 17,000 to 19,000 in places and 12-14% large trucks.

Near I-295 and US-58, that uptick is local traffic, not thru traffic.

US-17 has similar volumes and truck volumes.

-- connects Tri-Cities (Petersburg, Hopewell, Colonial Heights) to South Hampton Roads

Already accommodated by the existing 4-lane highway.

US-17 provides a direct link between Hampton Roads, Elizabeth City (population 20,000), Greenville (population 100,000), along with New Bern (population 30,000), Jacksonville (population 73,000), Wilmington (population 120,000), and Myrtle Beach (population 450,000) further down US-17 beyond US-64.

At 286 miles long, US-17 through North Carolina serves 13 counties and a population of 826,178, plus other major population centers such as Greenville not directly on the US-17 corridor.

A completed freeway along the US-17 corridor from Norfolk to Myrtle Beach, in addition to I-73 between I-95 and Myrtle Beach, would be a logical addition to the interstate system to provide coastal access that is bypassed by I-95 on its inland routing. Over the next 10 years, the remaining 2-lane segments of US-17 should be completed, and a 4-lane corridor will exist throughout the state. The segment from Hampstead to South Carolina, along with the segment from Williamston to Norfolk, roughly 155 miles of the 286 mile long route, or 54% of the route, are slated to be upgraded / relocated to interstate standards by 2045. Completing the remaining 131 miles to freeway standards in between, keeping in mind that 39 miles is already / will be completed to freeway standards, would be a valuable project.

The projects to upgrade US-17 to freeway standards for the I-87 corridor actually do have merit outside of the Raleigh-Norfolk connection itself, and is the only large scale upgrades that will be constructed for I-87. US-64 is already a completed 70 mph freeway from Raleigh to Williamston, finished around 2006.

$28 million per mile, a bargain killed by The Punk.

Highway projects should still reasonably be around this rate. Why have highway construction costs risen to $50 - $100 million per mile in Virginia, yet our neighbors to the south have managed to maintain a consistent $25 - $30 million per mile construction cost?

Would have solved Petersburg-Suffolk once and for all time.

Agreed, and it was a shame to see the project abandoned.

[Beltway]

Computing on the downtowns of Richmond and Norfolk, 6 miles farther on US-460.

Existing US-460 is 50 miles, a US-460 on new location would be around 59 miles long, so add 9 miles to that figure. 16 miles added, plus a toll, the equivalent of at least an additional 30 miles in an average passenger vehicle.

Correct on the existing length, about 50.2 miles.

Incorrect on the new, the selected southerly relocation was 52 miles long.  I have a copy of the DEIS and FEIS.

So those calculations are put in File 13.
     """"
    <..>
      ||
    \__/
"File 13!"

The elephant in the room is the Hampton Roads estuary.

-- US-460 is a STRAHNET route

US-17 is designated as a High Priority Corridor between I-64 and US-64.
US-17 is also designated as a STRAHNET corridor from Windsor to South Carolina.

US-64 is neither.

-- US-460 is a 4-lane rural arterial route but that segment is not built to those standards (is undivided, narrow lanes, narrow shoulders, no town bypasses, several sections prone to flooding, slow average speed of 49 mph, supranormal crash rates)

Widen the shoulders to 10 feet, construct a center turn lane / concrete barrier, and shallow town bypasses. A similar project was recently completed along NC-24 between Fayetteville and Clinton, NC, the 2-lane road was expanded to 4-lanes divided by a 46 foot median, and 4 shallow town bypasses were constructed. The 28.6 mile project cost $252 million, approximately $8.8 million per mile.

US-460 can't just be widened, it needs full reconstruction including leveling the grade in many places and raising the grade in flood-prone areas.  All new pavement, all new drainage.  The roadway prism needs to be at least 25 wider on each side, and there would be many major wetland impacts.  All that for only a modest gain in highway design and capacity.

I see that NC-24 has no grade separations (it is only a local arterial).  US-460 would need interchanges at each end of each bypass and at major junctions, at least that was part of the estimate.  Minimum of 3 bypasses, realistically 6 (that was in the estimate), and the Windsor Bypass would extend to the Suffolk Bypass.  So about 50% of the route would be bypasses, and each end of each bypass would need to be transitioned back to the current route.

It is better just to the bypass the whole thing, at very minimum a 4-lane at-grade expressway, and realistically the major junctions need interchanges, so just go ahead and grade separate the whole thing, and don't need to transition in and out of the existing highway.

-- part of the cross-state 4-lane US-460 corridor

US-460 is already 4-lanes between Suffolk and Petersburg.

Far below modern arterial standards and capacity, as detailed previously.

Up to 17,000 to 19,000 in places and 12-14% large trucks.

Near I-295 and US-58, that uptick is local traffic, not thru traffic.

The truck percentages are for the whole route, and those higher volume areas create congestion, traffic signals, delays and crashes.

Like with anti-roads obstructionists, you are pursuing the tactic of focusing down on one element (long-distance inter-state travel in this case) and trying to dispute the project based on that one item, when in fact the project was approved based on a multiplicity of justifications.

Even if you don't agree with all the official justifications, they are what was judged valid by the project approvers at the time.

You are also using my support (at least at the time and cost in 2012) of the US-460 Freeway to try to justify your support of Vanity Interstate Route VI-87.

[sprjus4]

Correct on the existing length, about 50.2 miles.

Incorrect on the new, the selected southerly relocation was 52 miles long.  I have a copy of the DEIS and FEIS.

You're the one who provided the 59 mile figure.

Still 14 miles + a toll to overcome costing the equivalent of at least 30 miles. Again, a minor expense for a motorist, but you claim this minor expense makes a whole project vanity.

US-64 is neither.

US-64 is apart of High Priority Corridor 13 between Raleigh and Williamston.

The entire US-64 / US-17 corridor from Raleigh to the North Carolina border is also designated as Future Interstate 87, approved by the FHWA, AASHTO, and Congress under the FAST Act in 2015.

Already mentioned numerous times, US-64 is a completed 70 mph freeway from Raleigh to Williamston. While the entire corridor is designated as Future Interstate 87, US-17 is the only portion that is not up to freeway standards where upgrades would be required. I already mentioned above US-17 has its own merits apart from the I-87 corridor to be upgraded. At this rate, you're taking an upgraded US-17, an existing US-64 freeway, and merely slapping an I-87 shield and branding it as a "Norfolk-Raleigh interstate" using both corridors combined. You're focusing your arguments on this corridor solely at the name at this point.

I see that NC-24 has no grade separations (it is only a local arterial).

Except it has a full cloverleaf interchange on the eastern end at I-95, a diamond interchange with US-421 on the western end, and has an interchange with NC-242 in the middle. It connects Fayetteville, Clinton, and Jacksonville. It's not a "minor arterial".

Like with anti-roads obstructionists, you are pursuing the tactic of focusing down on one element (long-distance inter-state travel in this case) and trying to dispute the project based on that one item, when in fact the project was approved based on a multiplicity of justifications.

Even if you don't agree with all the official justifications, they are what was judged valid by the project approvers at the time.

The hypocrisy is screaming right now in regards to upgrading US-17.

Like with anti-roads obstructionists, you are pursuing the tactic of focusing down on one element (mileage, specifically of the I-87 corridor concept) and trying to dispute the project based on that one item, when in fact the project was approved based on a multiplicity of justifications.

Even if you don't agree with all the official justifications, they are what is being judged valid by the project approvers at the time (in this case NCDOT and the HRTPO).

[Beltway]

Correct on the existing length, about 50.2 miles.
Incorrect on the new, the selected southerly relocation was 52 miles long.  I have a copy of the DEIS and FEIS.

You're the one who provided the 59 mile figure.

Must of been a mistype where I was thinking 49 miles on the existing highway between I-295 and the Suffolk Bypass.

[...nope...]

US-64 is neither.

US-64 is apart of High Priority Corridor 13 between Raleigh and Williamston.

HPC does not necessarily require a freeway or even an expressway.

The entire US-64 / US-17 corridor from Raleigh to the North Carolina border is also designated as Future Interstate 87, approved by the FHWA, AASHTO, and Congress under the FAST Act in 2015.

Vanity Interstate highway designation, as I have repeatedly hammered down.

[...nope...snip...]

I see that NC-24 has no grade separations (it is only a local arterial).

Except it has a full cloverleaf interchange on the eastern end at I-95, a diamond interchange with US-421 on the western end, and has an interchange with NC-242 in the middle. It connects Fayetteville, Clinton, and Jacksonville. It's not a "minor arterial".

Well, it wouldn't connect at grade with I-95, now, would it?
So two interchanges.
Not "minor," per se, but it is "local."

The hypocrisy is screaming right now in regards to upgrading US-17.

Vanity Interstate highways are bad projects, as I have repeatedly hammered out.

[sprjus4]

Dodging the bullets and creatively snipping I see...

[...nope...]

Still 14 miles + a toll to overcome costing the equivalent of at least 30 miles. Again, a minor expense for a motorist, but you claim this minor expense makes a whole project vanity.

The entire US-64 / US-17 corridor from Raleigh to the North Carolina border is also designated as Future Interstate 87, approved by the FHWA, AASHTO, and Congress under the FAST Act in 2015.

[...nope...snip...]

Already mentioned numerous times, US-64 is a completed 70 mph freeway from Raleigh to Williamston. While the entire corridor is designated as Future Interstate 87, US-17 is the only portion that is not up to freeway standards where upgrades would be required. I already mentioned above US-17 has its own merits apart from the I-87 corridor to be upgraded. At this rate, you're taking an upgraded US-17, an existing US-64 freeway, and merely slapping an I-87 shield and branding it as a "Norfolk-Raleigh interstate" using both corridors combined. You're focusing your arguments on this corridor solely at the name at this point.

The hypocrisy is screaming right now in regards to upgrading US-17.

Vanity Interstate highways are bad projects, as I have repeatedly hammered out.

Like with anti-roads obstructionists, you are pursuing the tactic of focusing down on one element (mileage, specifically of the I-87 corridor concept) and trying to dispute the project based on that one item, when in fact the project was approved based on a multiplicity of justifications.

Even if you don't agree with all the official justifications, they are what is being judged valid by the project approvers at the time (in this case NCDOT and the HRTPO).

From the US-17 Feasibility Study completed in January 2019...

The purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade US 17 from US 64 in Williamston to Virginia to interstate standards to improve mobility, connectivity, and safety.

Congress approved a Future Interstate designation from Raleigh to Hampton Roads via Rocky Mount and Elizabeth City on December 3, 2015, as part of their five-year transportation bill, and on May 25, 2016, the American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO) approved the interstate designation of I-87 for the US 64/17 corridor. The corridor would follow the I-495 and Future I-495 freeway corridor from I-40/I-440 in Raleigh and east to I-95 at Rocky Mount. It would continue east along the US 64 freeway towards Tarboro and Williamston, North Carolina and then travel the US 17 corridor via Elizabeth City, North Carolina, and then connect to the cities of Chesapeake and Norfolk, Virginia in the Hampton Roads region. While all of I-495/US 64 between Raleigh and Williamston is freeway, many segments of US 17 from Williamston to I-64 in Hampton Roads are not freeway and would need widening, upgrade, or new location.

US 17 is critical to economic development in the northeastern region of North Carolina. It speeds delivery of agricultural products to the Port of Virginia and local markets and serves the logistical needs of our military. In August 2013, an economic impact study was completed for the Highway 17 Association, and according to the study, bringing US 17 up to Interstate standards would generate an economic impact of $3 billion and create over 4,000 jobs along the corridor in all sectors of the region's economy: agribusiness, military, and tourism.

2.1 Related Studies
Several studies have been conducted that include goals for the US 17 corridor and support the purpose and need for the proposed project.

North Carolina Strategic Transportation Corridor Policy
US 17 is identified at Strategic Transportation Corridor O as a part of the Strategic Transportation Corridor Policy. The policy identifies high-priority transportation corridors that connect statewide and regional transportation dependent activity centers. The goals of the policy are to promote system connectivity, mobility, and economic prosperity. The functions of the US 17 corridor in the context of these goals are as follows:

* Connectivity: US 17 is a part of the STRAHNET network connecting multiple major military bases. The corridor also connects North Carolina to the South Carolina and Virginia state borders, providing the only continuous north-south route east of I-95. It provides primary access to international air service from Norfolk airports.
* Economic Prosperity: US 17 connects northeast North Carolina markets to the ports in Norfolk and workers to major employment opportunities in southeast Virginia. It serves as a major route from eastern North Carolina agricultural activities to international markets through North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina ports and provides primary access to critical military installations in the region, for both employment and mission-critical military activities.
* Expectation: As a critical transportation corridor for the economically sensitive eastern North Carolina region, Corridor O should continue to be improved to ensure safe, reliable, high speed access to Virginia ports and reliable levels of service throughout the southern portion of the corridor

NC Maritime Strategy
The NC Maritime Strategy notes that goods originating from or destined for North Carolina are primarily transported by truck. Therefore, the proposed transportation system investments identified in the Maritime Strategy focus largely on highway projects. US 17 is identified as a key route for waterborne truck freight within North Carolina. The study states that the prioritization or acceleration of STIP projects along these identified corridors would benefit industries that rely on the state's maritime infrastructure.

US 17 Economic Impact Study
The US 17 Economic Impact Study was prepared for the Highway 17 Association in August of 2013. The Highway 17 Association is a a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote US 17 development as an economic stimulant for the entire coastal region of North Carolina. The purpose of the study was to assist the Highway 17 Association and NCDOT in determining the impacts of further highway investment, particularly on tourism, the military and its future requirements, farm and forest land utilization, and industrial access and development within the eastern North Carolina region.

The study finds that not only would improvements to the highway increase economic opportunities for the military, agri-business, and tourism sectors, NC's three largest economic sectors, but the future improvements identified in this study would improve traveller safety, reduce travel time, increase retail activity, enhance industrial development activity, and provide opportunities to divert traffic off of Interstate 95. Overall, the conclusion of this study reinforces the long-recognized tenet that improving US 17 will contribute to overall economic improvements in the coastal region of North Carolina.

The traffic forecast for 2040 Build is average 19,083 - 27,417 AADT throughout the whole corridor, whereas the traffic forecast for 2040 No Build is average 13,333 - 21,767 throughout the whole corridor. The existing 2015 No Build is average 9,233 - 15,698 throughout the whole corridor.

2040 Build -
Martin - 22,300 - 23,500
Bertie - 13,600 - 24,600
Chowan - 16,300 - 20,900
Perquimans - 22,800 - 31,400
Pasquotank - 15,800 - 33,200
Camden - 23,700 - 30,900

2040 No Build -
Martin - 13,000 - 22,700
Bertie - 8,800 - 20,600
Chowan - 11,500 - 12,300
Perquimans - 16,800 - 24,900
Pasquotank - 11,500 - 26,700
Camden - 18,400 - 23,400

2015 No Build (existing) -
Martin - 9,800 - 17,500
Bertie - 6,200 - 15,000
Chowan - 7,700 - 9,900
Perquimans - 11,200 - 17,200
Pasquotank - 7,900 - 18,400
Camden - 12,600 - 16,100

Per the study, there is a projected increase of traffic, and upgrading US-17 to interstate standards would attract additional traffic. With a maintained average of about 20,000 AADT, up to 30,000 AADT in the northern counties, certainly could warrant an interstate standard roadway. Assuming these increased levels of traffic carried into the city of Chesapeake, the southern 12 miles would likely have at least 20,000 - 30,000 AADT with Dominion Blvd likely carrying over 50,000 AADT. If this is the case, then US-17 in the city of Chesapeake would certainly warrant being upgraded to interstate standards as well, at minimum interchanges with Grassfield Pkwy, Scenic Pkwy, and George Washington Hwy.

I'm sure you'll just claim these figures were drafted by economic developers though.



A relocated US-460 is just as "vanity" as an upgraded US-17 through North Carolina, any way you slice it.

[NE2]

fuck

[Beltway]

The traffic forecast for 2040 Build is average 19,083 - 27,417 AADT throughout the whole corridor, whereas the traffic forecast for 2040 No Build is average 13,333 - 21,767 throughout the whole corridor. The existing 2015 No Build is average 9,233 - 15,698 throughout the whole corridor.

IOW, the seeking of and enablement of metastatic population growth in a mostly rural area with a smattering of small towns and a few small cities.

Why would this be sought and/or considered desirable?

[tjcreasy]

I'll weigh in. VDOT has designated both I-64 and US-460 as the two primary routes to Norfolk and Virginia Beach from Richmond (I-295) and vice versa. Both routes are competitive in terms of trip times, especially during peak seasonal traffic.  I know this because I pass the travel time sign everyday on my way to work. A US 460 Toll Road would have had competitive or better travel times to Norfolk/VA Beach and vice versa. More importantly this road would reduce trucks and improve safety on the existing US-460 and I-64 routes. As a toll road the cost of construction and maintenance  would ultimately be passed to the road users. I see that as a plus as well. I don't see the US-460 toll road proposal as vanity at all.

[Beltway]

I'll weigh in. VDOT has designated both I-64 and US-460 as the two primary routes to Norfolk and Virginia Beach from Richmond (I-295) and vice versa. Both routes are competitive in terms of trip times, especially during peak seasonal traffic.  I know this because I pass the travel time sign everyday on my way to work. A US 460 Toll Road would have had competitive or better travel times to Norfolk/VA Beach and vice versa. More importantly this road would reduce trucks and improve safety on the existing US-460 and I-64 routes. As a toll road the cost of construction and maintenance  would ultimately be passed to the road users. I see that as a plus as well. I don't see the US-460 toll road proposal as vanity at all.

My OnStar nav system estimates about the same mileage and 20 more minutes to follow US-460 as opposed to I-64, on my trips between the City of Richmond and the Centerville area of Virginia Beach.

In high volume times, the HRBT and approaches can easily have 15 or 20 minutes of delay, and there can be problems on other parts of I-64.  IOW it is pretty much a no-brainer to use US-460 as the default, and that is with today's US-460, as it rarely has delays.

BTW, this is a common tactic with Sprjus4, with many projects.  I criticize one of his pet projects, and he finds project that I support and then tries to draw parallels between the two projects and then attacks my opposition to his project on that basis, and even alleges "hypocrisy" if I don't support his project.

The US-460 Freeway has many justifications as I have posted, and I support or reject a project based on its own merits, and decide whether its financial and environmental costs are justifiable.

[sprjus4]

In high volume times, the HRBT and approaches can easily have 15 or 20 minutes of delay, and there can be problems on other parts of I-64.  IOW it is pretty much a no-brainer to use US-460 as the default, and that is with today's US-460, as it rarely has delays.

Agreed, and it serves as a good alternative to I-64. I used US-460 frequently earlier in 2019 when I was making more frequent trips to the north over I-64. It's a shame the road never got built ultimately. When was it originally supposed to be open to traffic?

BTW, this is a common tactic with Sprjus4, with many projects.  I criticize one of his pet projects, and he finds project that I support and then tries to draw parallels between the two projects and then attacks my opposition to his project on that basis, and even alleges "hypocrisy" if I don't support his project.

The US-460 Freeway has many justifications as I have posted, and I support or reject a project based on its own merits, and decide whether its financial and environmental costs are justifiable.

Let's agree to disagree here, quite frankly I'm tired of this continuous back-and-forth. You oppose the project for a variety of reasons, and I'm supportive of it for a variety of different reasons. You have your thoughts on the project's potential and success rate, and I have my thoughts on it. You have your thoughts on whether it acts as a supplemental route to the existing routing, and I have my thoughts on it. We've dragged this argument on far too long at this point, and nothing has resulted or will result. This applies to the entire I-87 concept, and upgrades to US-17.

I'll continue to post about the corridor when new developments come of it, you will continue to spew your one off comments, "vanity", etc. and that's fine. You get your thoughts across. I've already gotten mine across. I'm not going to waste any more effort in responding.