Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[kphoger]

Is this the graphic you're referring to?
I agree, it's an error.

Everything I-87 touches is Alanland.

* kphoger ducks and runs.

ps – Back-engineering that quote string took a while.

[index]

I-87 may very well help a lot of the struggling communities in its path when it comes through.

http://wnct.com/2017/01/03/martin-co-leaders-looks-forward-to-i-87-related-job-growth/

[froggie]

The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.

[LM117]

The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.

Agreed, but it shouldn't be too difficult to see why so much faith in I-shields persists, especially in economically depressed areas. For example, I-795 has helped Goldsboro some since the interstate came into existence 10 years ago, though it took a few years thanks to the Great Recession.  Even the small town of Mount Olive has had development pop up on NC-55 near the US-117 interchange since it's been known for years that I-795 will eventually go through Mount Olive on it's way to I-40. One of the fast food chains (I forget which) had intended on opening next to I-795 in Fremont on NC-222 a few years ago until the NIMBY property owners killed it. People can laugh at fast food joints but for a small town, money is money.

The new US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro has led to development popping up towards it's exits, particularly on Wayne Memorial Drive and NC-581. A convention center is currently being built next to Wayne Community College with a large hotel being planned to be built next to the convention center.

As far as I-87 goes, I seriously doubt it will turn anything around. If there's any development at all, it will most likely be between Rocky Mount and Raleigh and between Elizabeth City and Virginia. It just doesn't have the level of traffic that the I-42 and I-795 corridors have.

While interstates are not an automatic guarantee of economic development, there are cases where it has helped to give some areas a boost, whether big or small.

[Beltway]

The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.

Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.

The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%.  National population has increased by 112% since 1950.

West Virginia
        2015        2010          2000          1990         1950
1,844,128  1,852,996  1,808,344  1,793,477  2,005,552

[DJStephens]

The bottom three states in terms of economic opportunity are likely New Mexico (48) Mississippi (49) and West Virginia (50) in that order   

[sparker]

The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.

Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.

The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%.  National population has increased by 112% since 1950.

West Virginia
        2015        2010          2000          1990         1950
1,844,128  1,852,996  1,808,344  1,793,477  2,005,552

The bottom three states in terms of economic opportunity are likely New Mexico (48) Mississippi (49) and West Virginia (50) in that order   

In 1950, the lion's share of WV population were engaged in two economic activities:  resource (principally coal) extraction, and metal production (generally steel up in the northern panhandle).  At that time, diversifying into other fields didn't seem necessary.  The state's topography and lack of significant agricultural production has always been a factor; there is little breadth of economic activity; and when the steel industry began its decline in the late '50's those regions dominated by that industry suffered economic and eventually population losses correspondingly (just look at the last 7 census figures for Pittsburgh and Birmingham for confirmation of this trend).  When coal followed suit about 30 years later, it simply exacerbated the previous dynamics.  If one were to run regression analyses on determinants of WV's dire financial straits, road development would hardly make a blip in regards to its contribution -- or lack thereof -- to those circumstances.  The only "robust" data would inevitably track the loss of heavy industry and mining.  You could build 200 miles of new Interstate and/or full-blown ARC facility within the state -- or none at all -- and except for a marginal spike of cash flow around any construction efforts neither extreme would come close to affecting, much less reversing, the nearly 70-year decline.  Citing WV as an example of how new Interstate routes (the last development of which occurred 29 years ago with then-US 48, later I-68) -- or even ARC corridor development -- fail to enhance state economic fortune is both misleading and gratuitous; in that regard, the state is plainly an outlier.   

[froggie]

^ I wasn't thinking of West Virginia.  I was thinking of areas that already had an Interstate (and major rail) junction and are still dying or decreasing.  Meridian, MS is a classic example of this and the first one I was thinking of.

[Beltway]

In 1950, the lion's share of WV population were engaged in two economic activities:  resource (principally coal) extraction, and metal production (generally steel up in the northern panhandle).  At that time, diversifying into other fields didn't seem necessary.  The state's topography and lack of significant agricultural production has always been a factor; there is little breadth of economic activity; and when the steel industry began its decline in the late '50's those regions dominated by that industry suffered economic and eventually population losses correspondingly (just look at the last 7 census figures for Pittsburgh and Birmingham for confirmation of this trend).  When coal followed suit about 30 years later, it simply exacerbated the previous dynamics.  If one were to run regression analyses on determinants of WV's dire financial straits, road development would hardly make a blip in regards to its contribution -- or lack thereof -- to those circumstances.  The only "robust" data would inevitably track the loss of heavy industry and mining.  You could build 200 miles of new Interstate and/or full-blown ARC facility within the state -- or none at all -- and except for a marginal spike of cash flow around any construction efforts neither extreme would come close to affecting, much less reversing, the nearly 70-year decline.  Citing WV as an example of how new Interstate routes (the last development of which occurred 29 years ago with then-US 48, later I-68) -- or even ARC corridor development -- fail to enhance state economic fortune is both misleading and gratuitous; in that regard, the state is plainly an outlier.   

Agriculture is a lot more than just growing crops, it includes livestock products and forestal harvesting.  Do some research and find that West Virginia did and does produce considerable agricultural output.  Around 23,000 farms averaging 157 acres each.  The third most-forested state with 12 million acres of forestland.

West Virginia could reinvent itself just like Pittsburgh did after the huge decline in steel and industrial output.  A number of small metros that could experience considerable growth and development.

I didn't say "fail to enhance", I just said that there is no guarantee.  Sticking a highway in a questionable area with at best one-dimensional justifications (hello!) points to a boondoggle.

[Beltway]

^ I wasn't thinking of West Virginia.  I was thinking of areas that already had an Interstate (and major rail) junction and are still dying or decreasing.  Meridian, MS is a classic example of this and the first one I was thinking of.

Sounds like instances in West Virginia.

[sparker]

One must remember that political decisions such as the driving force behind the commissioning of the south I-87 are based on perception rather than any extensive studies regarding the efficacy of the specific route.  The backers and their political allies are convinced that the presence of the route will at least contribute to economic gains in the area it traverses -- and it's likely, if you asked them directly, that they're convinced that they are pursuing a noble goal regarding the connection between Raleigh and Hampton Roads.  Whether that's self-deception or not is at the present time a moot point; these folks have mobilized all the forces that they needed to mobilize (as in getting AASHTO approval for the designation, "piggybacked" on an existing high-priority corridor) to advance the project. 

For better or worse, this is part and parcel of the political process as applied to potential Interstate additions.  There are no effective gatekeepers tasked with vetting these routes prior to deployment activities; the process remains within the political realm until construction actually occurs.  When there is local/state consensus that a new Interstate corridor is desired, it tends to be advanced to the degree that funding allows; when there isn't broad agreement, the prospect generally doesn't get off the ground.  In this instance, NC's a favorable environment, while, categorically VA is not.  The NC transportation establishment thinks that it's accomplishing a worthy goal -- and under today's prevalent  "system", that by default tends to carry the day.   

[Beltway]

What you say in general is reasonable.  But every highway proposal is different and needs to be judged on its own merits.  Any "perception" needs to be evaluated to see if it is accurate or if it is inaccurate or if it is not grounded in reality.

This highway is in a questionable area regarding any significant economic growth, and even that is a one-dimensional justification.

[sparker]

What you say in general is reasonable.  But every highway proposal is different and needs to be judged on its own merits.  Any "perception" needs to be evaluated to see if it is accurate or if it is inaccurate or if it is not grounded in reality.

This highway is in a questionable area regarding any significant economic growth, and even that is a one-dimensional justification.

When it comes to highways & politics, a priori concepts such as demonstration of actual need are simply bypassed or just not afforded much in the way of consideration.  It's a variation on March and Kingdon's theory of the "garbage can" policy process:  a particular action is framed as a "solution" -- in this case, connecting Hampton Roads with Raleigh and the "Research Triangle".  Then the search for a salable set of rationales begins:  Panamax, the existence of upgradeable facilities, economic viability of the traversed area, possible recreational usage to & from the Outer Banks, and so on and so forth.  Essentially it's predicated upon "piling on" of reasons to advance the project -- enough to sway legislators (a process that has been completed regarding "selling" of the corridor concept in general to the actors with decision-making authority; but will continue until funding can be extracted and deployed.  In short, this process began back in 1991 with the corridor's inclusion in the ISTEA corridor compendium, likely by either the same actors who envisioned I-87 a quarter-century later or their lineal predecessors.  It sat relatively dormant (although it's intriguing that the portion of US 64 completed prior to ISTEA (west of Tarboro) was not built to Interstate standards, but the portion east from there to Williamston was! -- and that construction happened after ISTEA.  The instigators have been active for quite some time, likely in and out of NCDOT.  Sometimes persistence -- and a damn good sales pitch -- can overcome naysayers -- and it's likely that precious few of those were given the time of day by the NC parties involved, who don't see the process as "zero-sum"; they also don't see a "no-build" or "status quo" option as feasible -- like the proverbial shark, they seem to feel as if they must always be moving forward and have a freeway/Interstate project "in the hopper", so to speak -- as if letting up would invite unwanted criticism and possible opposition.  But it's the process that tends to prevail these days.                                                                                           

[LM117]

What you say in general is reasonable.  But every highway proposal is different and needs to be judged on its own merits.  Any "perception" needs to be evaluated to see if it is accurate or if it is inaccurate or if it is not grounded in reality.

This highway is in a questionable area regarding any significant economic growth, and even that is a one-dimensional justification.

In short, this process began back in 1991 with the corridor's inclusion in the ISTEA corridor compendium, likely by either the same actors who envisioned I-87 a quarter-century later or their lineal predecessors.  It sat relatively dormant (although it's intriguing that the portion of US 64 completed prior to ISTEA (west of Tarboro) was not built to Interstate standards, but the portion east from there to Williamston was! -- and that construction happened after ISTEA.  The instigators have been active for quite some time, likely in and out of NCDOT.

The Raleigh-Norfolk interstate idea goes as far back as at least 1992. According to this article from October 22, 1992, the HRTPO was opposed to using US-17 at the time and they and NCDOT favored using US-13 to cross into Virginia and then use US-58 to connect with I-64. Only VDOT favored using US-17.

http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-10-22/news/9210220164_1_new-route-new-road-study

Compare that to today, where NCDOT favors using US-17 and VDOT is leaning toward VA-168.

[Beltway]

ISTEA High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System, don't have to be designed to Interstate standards, or designed to freeway standards, at least most of them aren't.  They don't even have to be four lanes, but most of them are.

[Beltway]

The US-13 route is no less circuitous than is the US-17 route.  Another problem would be how to get thru Suffolk, as the southeast quadrant of the Suffolk Bypass was never built because of the high impacts to the Dismal Swamp.  Routing on the existing bypass would add even more circuitous extra mileage.

[froggie]

^ Existing bypass vs. cancelled eastern bypass is about a 4.5 mile difference.

[NE2]

The US-13 route is no less circuitous than is the US-17 route.

Not if you use NC 11. Then you actually get something not longer than I-95 to US 58!

[michealbond]

I-87 may very well help a lot of the struggling communities in its path when it comes through.

http://wnct.com/2017/01/03/martin-co-leaders-looks-forward-to-i-87-related-job-growth/

"Having a blue shield in our county opens up a lot of projects that we didn't have access to in the past,"  said Semple, "As we respond to active projects for RFIs and those types of requests, it's always the first thing, the first question they ask. Do you have interstate access? And now we can say that."

That's the most telling quote, to me. As petty or small of a reason as it sounds, the reality is that an interstate is what a lot of major employers are looking for when wanting to locate to an area.

Eastern NC is poor as it is, but Northeastern NC is even poorer and is in desperate need of anything that could potentially help create jobs in the area. An interstate will open some doors there that will not be available without it.

[froggie]

That's a lot of public expenditure for what would be a questionable chance (and likely retail/service-related) of development.

[Rothman]

Have to agree with Froggie.  Although the "build it and they will come" mantra is well-established, it is just a mantra.  As we love to point out up here in NY, if interstates meant money, Binghamton should be Monaco instead of the slag heap it is.

[sparker]

ISTEA High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System, don't have to be designed to Interstate standards, or designed to freeway standards, at least most of them aren't.  They don't even have to be four lanes, but most of them are.

Only those HPC's that are specifically designated as Interstates, either at the time of the initial corridor designation or within subsequent legislation, are slated for eventual development as an Interstate.  Overall, with the 90-some HPC's, many of the improvements have been "spot" projects along the corridor's length to improve efficiency or safety; some of that has involved expansion to a multi-lane facility.  The "piggybacking" of Interstates on HPC's began with the NHS act of 1995, when the I-69 cluster as well as the initial iteration of I-73/74 was designated over corridors themselves adopted four years earlier.  The practice of simultaneously designating a new HPC along with a corresponding new Interstate began in 2004 when HPC 45 was designated over part of existing HPC 10 in MS & AL -- and the I-22 route number was included in the bill; to date both I-14 and I-42 were instigated in this very manner.  In contrast, I-11 was added to the definition of a specific section of HPC 26 and later the entirety of HPC 68 (the former got it from Phoenix to Vegas, the latter from Vegas to I-80).  I-41 was an unusual case -- the language of its relevant corridor, HPC 57, was declared a "future Interstate" within its 2005 text -- but minus a number; the number was added in 2014 through the "normal" AASHTO SCOURN action.  The southern I-87's designation and numbering process was a bit unusual as it was a two-step process; first, HPC 13's original authorizing language was amended to include "future Interstate" status; and the number was subsequently (ill-)conceived at a 2016 SCOURN meeting after several NCDOT missteps.     

[Beltway]

The US-13 route is no less circuitous than is the US-17 route.

Not if you use NC 11. Then you actually get something not longer than I-95 to US 58!

Not a good route, IMHO.  Would serve no towns, nothing but some villages.

[Beltway]

That's a lot of public expenditure for what would be a questionable chance (and likely retail/service-related) of development.

As I have said, a one-dimensional warrant of questionable outcome.

And there is a very capable 4-lane high speed route already there.

[Beltway]

The HPCs are very flexible.  We have "Interstate 73" as in a supposedly approved Interstate corridor, yet West Virginia is planning their segment as an at-grade expressway, and Ohio and Michigan have done no serious preliminary planning yet (let alone proceed past that stage).  Virginia has a completed location/EIS NEPA process on the 70 miles of I-73 between N.C. and I-81, but the $4 billion cost has held up any construction so far, and the existing US-220 and I-581 is a very capable multilane high speed highway with 4 or more lanes and 30% of the length is freeway standard.  I would like to see I-73 built at least between SC I-95 and VA I-81.