Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[Beltway]

It took many years of work with the ACOE and other resource agencies to work out how to expand US-17 south of Dominion Blvd., various alternatives were evaluated.  The old highway was too close to the canal and had subbase drainage issues due to having so little elevation above ground level.  Much better to relocate away from the canal.

Agreed. Interesting though, what about North Carolina's section along the canal?

Built 20 years earlier, less environmental regulations then.  More issues with the development environment in Chesapeake.

"Various alignments were considered, but they all seemed to come down to this: people or wetlands?  One alternative would affect only 4.5 hectares (11 acres) of wetlands but would mean displacing 33 families and taking parts of 80 other properties.  Another alignment involved fewer families, but 22 hectares (55 acres) of wetlands would be affected."

"A solution was finally found: a shift in the alignment of the road 305 meters (1,000 feet) to the east and construction of parallel 300-meter (984-foot)-long bridges that ultimately displaced only one family and affected only 10 hectares (25 acres) of wetlands."

Route 17 - The Four Decade Project
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/05may/05.cfm

[sprjus4]

^ Interesting comparing that map to the below map, which I found at a 2004 public meeting.  The basic concept is still the same with flyover ramps both towards the High Rise Bridge and from SB 464 to "WB" 64.  But very different in design, especially since the below map shows a direct connection from the 64 HOV lanes (then-proposed to be reversible based on the ramp design) to the Oak Grove Connector.  My best guess is the below map dates to sometime/some study in the 1990s...the background satellite image does not show the Oak Grove Connector, which was completed in 2001.

Generally, the same designs are proposed, just with more compressed ramps. This proposal would not work today due to development on Great Bridge Blvd. Interesting HOV flyover, that would be very convenient if they built a two-way one with the current project, to bypass the daily congestion heading from 64 EB to 168 SB. It could be a compressed design, but still work. Give more incentive to pay the toll, knowing you could bypass that daily bottleneck.

Was the Oak Grove Connector intended to have a reversible HOV lane beyond the picture, or would it merge back in?

Lastly, are those design plans from a Dominion Blvd concept? If so, if you have more, could you post them? I've never seen those, because they're not online. That would be appreciated.

------------FYI:
Oak Grove Connector was completed in July 1999.
The Southern Extension to NC was completed in May 2001.

[Beltway]

So you are eyeballing it and guessing.

No, I used a mapping measuring tool. And one could easily eyeball it and be able to tell I-295 has sharper curves. You ask me to get the radii of each curve, I do, then you say I made them up. It's funny how this works. Also another thing, if the majority of traffic drives at 65 - 70 MPH already, that's about the 85th percentile. That's a major factor in determining the speed limit.

You failed to pass my "test" on superelevation and how it relates to design speed, even after you had the opportunity to research it online before responding, you even showed the opposite of what it is.  You don't understand why sharper curves with high superelevation can handle higher speeds.  I was thinking that you might have a background in highway engineering, so I wanted to test it... 

A letter from the mayor.  A few comments from meeting participants.  Given how long HPC 13 and I-44 has been discussed, it would have made it to the 2016 update of the 2050 Master Transportation Plan for the City of Chesapeake if they were seriously considering it.

It hasn't even been discussed or seriously considered in Chesapeake until about 2017. Before then, the talks were in North Carolina. Why would Chesapeake have requested a feasibility study? Clearly, there's interest.

NC US-17 is a major 4-lane highway and it comes to the edge of the City of Chesapeake.  What is so difficult about posting VA US-17 interchanges to the 2050 Master Transportation Plan, if in fact they want to build them?

(Discussion in other posts that shows that the city is planning things well into the future, and also that they have a full plate of proposals; the Pleasant Grove Parkway, the Southeastern Parkway, the VA-168 widening, widening all of US-460 Military Highway in the City, widening all of I-64 and I-664 in the City, and others)

US-17 and Grassfield Parkway is a large and busy intersection, and you can't just close it and expect the traffic to use other very busy routes such as Cahoon Parkway and Cedar Road, without causing severe congestion, especially problematic for US-17 southerly traffic.

I'd like to see where you get that Grassfield is a large and busy intersection. It carries about 7,000 AADT. A majority is heading to destinations along Shillelagh Rd, etc. which would in fact use a Scenic Pkwy interchange. The traffic would be split between Cedar Rd & Scenic Pkwy interchanges, not all of the traffic isn't heading to the shopping center. There's plenty of other shopping areas that require some driving to get to off interstates either way, due to interchange location. Cahoon Parkway is not that busy of a roadway (10,000 AADT), and is currently being widened to 4 lanes. They also just built another 4-lane access road where new development is going to span to Cedar Road. And like I mentioned, a good amount of that traffic is heading towards Shillelagh Rd, etc. and would use a Scenic Pkwy interchange.
Let's wait and see what the city decides to do in the future.

Yes, let's wait and see if the city would want to sever the 4-lane Grassfield Parkway from US-17, before proposing to do that?  There is a shopping complex off of Grassfield right near US-17 and today they have direct access to US-17, and the routing to Scenic/US-17 is indirect and on residential 2-lane roads, and the routing to Cedar/US-17 is also rather indirect.

At this point it would appear that a tight interchange would be indicated at US-17 and Grassfield Parkway, and at US-17 and Scenic Parkway, possibly a C-D connecting the two, that would be the logical default (starting point) to be evaluated in future EIS/location studies for an upgrade of the at-grade segment of Dominion Boulevard.

Interstate standards of 1970, perhaps.  Not today's Interstate standards.  Single lane roadway northbound, left exit southbound, long low-speed curve on both mainline directions, frequent exits and entrances.
These roadways in the interchange are physically ramps, and as ramps they could meet Interstate standards, but not as mainline roadways, therefore they do not meet Interstate standards.

Whoa, is I-87 going beyond I-64 / I-464? The I-87 designation would end at the interchange of I-64/I-464/VA-168, and ramps (that meet interstate standards) through the interchange would connect to I-464 and I-64. I-87's designation isn't continuing through the interchange and beyond there.

This highway has been touted by N.C. as the "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor".  Why should it simply devolve into ramps in Chesapeake just before it connects to the Interstate highway that connects into downtown Norfolk?  That makes no sense from an Interstate highway corridor standpoint.

If this highway is to be what it is touted to be, then a fully capable design would include a seamless Interstate-caliber mainline between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464.

You yourself have even suggested replacing the I-464 designation with I-87.

There's no interstate standard that declares left exits are prohibited. They're not preferred, but not prohibited. Could you cite where you found that?

I never made the claim that they are prohibited on an Interstate highway, as they are not; but there are safety issues, they are obsolete, and it is just plain crappy engineering on a 21st century Interstate highway general purpose roadway.

The "single lane roadway northbound" is the ramp connecting to I-64, it's not the mainline anymore. The overall interchange mix begins at the north end of the Great Bridge Blvd bridges.

The "single lane roadway northbound" I referred to is the ramp connecting US-17 to I-464.

2-lane high-speed mainline roadways with at least 55 mph design between US-17 and I-464, and no left hand ramps.  It may take elevated roadways.

Not required by interstate design standards. The interchange is adequate, and it's not "cheap design", it's pointless design. There's no active congestion that a right exit to VA-168 South would fix.

Highway engineers don't consider right-hand ramps to be "pointless", they consider them to be modern 21st century Interstate highway standards.  Left-hand ramps are considered to be an obsolete and substandard engineering concept that violates driver expectancy.  (Where is Mr. Lansford when you need him?  )

If the 3-way I-64/I-464 Interstate interchange is going to become a 4-way Interstate interchange then the interchange needs to be upgraded, a semi-directional ramp is needed from WB (Inner Loop) I-64 to SB US-17, and that will be difficult to build without a lot of bridgework..

There's almost no traffic that utilizes that movement. The previous interchange on I-64 WB is at US 17 Business, and traffic heading south would use that, and not back track to ride Dominion Blvd. The movement is provided presently by Great Bridge Blvd. A design exception would likely be granted due to the minor amount of traffic, and the amount of benefit to traffic a high-speed ramp would provide (which is none). Exceptions to the standards are made when it's not justified or reasonable. I'd like you to explain why it must be built, or no shield, and why exceptions for minor things such as this have never been granted and never will (which again, is false, and they have, even in the 21st century).

You seem to have misunderstood what I said.

WB (Inner Loop) I-64 to SB US-17 -- the Inner Loop of I-64 Hampton Roads Beltway is the direction heading toward Bowers Hill, the Outer Loop is that heading toward VA Beach.

The connection I am referring to is now handled by a tight one-lane loop ramp between the Inner Loop and US-17.

It's anti I-87 rhetoric, that's strictly it. Making up your own interstate standards, proposing $200+ million projects strictly so it has right exits and 55 MPH direct ramps to be signed I-87 when the interchange already is adequate and meets your version of interstate-highway standards

It's hyper-advocacy VI-87 rhetoric, that's strictly it.  Making up your own Interstate standards, proposing cheapened designs that uses ramp designs when mainline designs are indicated.  Whacking urban interchanges that appear to be needed or at least strongly desirable.

If there is to be a "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor", then it needs to be done **RIGHT**, and that would include the US-17/I-64/I-464 junction upgrades that I detailed.

Doing Interstate highways *RIGHT* means ample and robust designs that will be adequate for 20 years or more, not designs that at best just barely squeak by with a minimum, tolerable standard of today's needs.

We get you hate the highway,

Ah yes, playing the "hate card".  No, I support most highway proposals, I just don't like they way that this scheme is being marketed by certain northeastern N.C. business interests, in how they are salivating over red-white-and-blue route trailblazers.  Shadowy hyper-advocates posting in online forums.  The more it gets discussed the more I am opposing it, and I will be engaging VDOT, CTB and HRTPO on this matter.

(People that have seen my very pro-highway posting history over the last 20 years on highways forums are probably chortling on the sidelines at seeing me tearing apart a proposed highway project!)

The route number itself that the Tar Heel State has chosen is screwed up.  The original I-44 made sense as an even number for a mostly east-west highway.  An odd number is for a north-south route like I-87 and it does not make sense and puts the capstone on the regurgitate.

For instance, we both know the I-64 / I-464 interchange meets current interstate standards, and that I-87 would end entering the interchange, and the existing ramps would connect it to I-64 and I-464. All of this is just to drive the cost way up and to make it look unfeasible, when in reality, building it with 4 interchanges, and under $150 million isn't "cheap" and "substandard", it's all that's realistically needed. It would conform to modern interstate highway standards (the real version), and would be fully standard.

A basic cloverleaf interchange of that type does not meet current Interstate standards for a very busy 4-way Interstate-to-Interstate interchange, and mere "ramps" are not an adequate design for the mainline of the N.C. touted "Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate corridor".  Adequate for 1970, but not a 21st century Interstate design.

You are just trying to chop away needed and modern features of Interstate highway design, in your business advocacy of trying to find the fastest way to gain approval of your red-white-and-blue route trailblazers.

Ultimately it will be VDOT engineers as to who decides what meets Interstate highway standards on Dominion Blvd. and the connection to I-464.  My initial discussions with them is that it is not / does not.

You helped in construction on I-95 south of Richmond. Every home and cross road along that route lost direct access to US 301, and now has to use frontage roads to meet the interstate mainline. It's similar this way, just it's not a direct frontage road, but rather a mixture of alternate routes that serve the same purpose. 

That was an upgrade of a nonlimited-access 4-lane highway to Interstate standards done *RIGHT*.  And completed 40 years ago!

Referring to the 18 miles of I-95 between Jarratt and VA-35.  VDOT bought out the entire east side of the highway and all the small properties and buildings.  Built a new northbound Interstate roadway.  Upgraded the northbound US-301 roadway to Interstate standards, and relocated it in 4 places (0.3 mi., 0.2 mi, 0.8 mi., 1.7 mi.) to reduce curves, replaced its mainline bridges, for use as southbound I-95.  Devolved the southbound US-301 back its original 2-way US-301 usage (and not a mere "frontage road"), and relocated 5 short segments to allow space for interchanges and overpasses to be built.  Built service roads in some places east of the highway to maintain access to farm properties.  Built a VA-40 bypass of Stony Creek that has an interchange with I-95.

Call me a troll, as you will, but I'm just trying to be real here.

You failed the highway engineers' "superelevation test".   

[LM117]

This highway has been touted by N.C. as the "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor".  Why should it simply devolve into ramps in Chesapeake just before it connects to the Interstate highway that connects into downtown Norfolk?  That makes no sense from an Interstate highway corridor standpoint.

If this highway is to be what it is touted to be, then a fully capable design would include a seamless Interstate-caliber mainline between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464.

You yourself have even suggested replacing the I-464 designation with I-87.

If VA ever does build I-87 (and that's a big IF), then it would make sense to replace I-464 with I-87, for the reasons you just mentioned.

That said, I think NC is doing the right thing by focusing on other more important projects in eastern NC first, namely I-42 and the extension of I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40 near Faison.

[froggie]

So you are eyeballing it and guessing.

No, I used a mapping measuring tool. And one could easily eyeball it and be able to tell I-295 has sharper curves. You ask me to get the radii of each curve, I do, then you say I made them up. It's funny how this works. Also another thing, if the majority of traffic drives at 65 - 70 MPH already, that's about the 85th percentile. That's a major factor in determining the speed limit.

You failed to pass my "test" on superelevation and how it relates to design speed, even after you had the opportunity to research it online before responding, you even showed the opposite of what it is.  You don't understand why sharper curves with high superelevation can handle higher speeds.  I was thinking that you might have a background in highway engineering, so I wanted to test it... 

Going back to the roadway itself...if 2500ft is the narrowest radius on the US 17 curves, that comes out to just under a 65mph design speed at 0% superelevation.  Assuming NCDOT (or VDOT...sprjus wasn't specific on which section of US 17 he was estimating curve radius on) used 0.2% superelevation for water run-off, none of the curves with less than a ~3200ft radius would meet a 70 MPH design speed.

[Beltway]

Going back to the roadway itself...if 2500ft is the narrowest radius on the US 17 curves, that comes out to just under a 65mph design speed at 0% superelevation.  Assuming NCDOT (or VDOT...sprjus wasn't specific on which section of US 17 he was estimating curve radius on) used 0.2% superelevation for water run-off, none of the curves with less than a ~3200ft radius would meet a 70 MPH design speed.

I don't understand how NCDOT can claim a 75 mph design speed on VI-87, but less on a rebuilt/widened I-95, given how little horizontal and vertical curvature is on I-95.

I looked at some of the plates on their feasibility study, and was disappointed in the proposal for 2 of the nonlimited-access sections to be upgraded to Interstate standards.  These have a long row of houses on each side and close to the highway.  I detailed how it was done Jarratt to VA-35 on I-95.  This is nothing like that, just acquiring limited access on the existing highway, squeezing in a new service road between the highway and the houses on one side, and building a service road behind the houses on the other side.  I'm sure those residents will just love having an Interstate highway right in front of their houses... and it is hard to imagine how they are going to design that segment for 75 mph.  Probably just a way to produce a feasibility study with low-balled total cost.  Likely won't survive EIS/location studies/public involvement process with those segments being designed like that; much higher treatments needed.
 

[Beltway]

This highway has been touted by N.C. as the "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor".  Why should it simply devolve into ramps in Chesapeake just before it connects to the Interstate highway that connects into downtown Norfolk?  That makes no sense from an Interstate highway corridor standpoint.

If this highway is to be what it is touted to be, then a fully capable design would include a seamless Interstate-caliber mainline between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464.

You yourself have even suggested replacing the I-464 designation with I-87.

If VA ever does build I-87 (and that's a big IF), then it would make sense to replace I-464 with I-87, for the reasons you just mentioned.

And -not- before these upgrades are built!

[sprjus4]

NC US-17 is a major 4-lane highway and it comes to the edge of the City of Chesapeake.  What is so difficult about posting VA US-17 interchanges to the 2050 Master Transportation Plan, if in fact they want to build them?

They requested VDOT & HRTPO to conduct a feasibility study back in December 2017. They're going to wait until the study is done, public input is done, and interchange locations are determined before they simply "post interchanges" on the map. You seem to ignore the fact that real discussions on the interstate came up recently, and they're going to wait until the study is completed and public input is taken before making official proposals or listing it in the Master Transportation Plan.

(Discussion in other posts that shows that the city is planning things well into the future, and also that they have a full plate of proposals; the Pleasant Grove Parkway, the Southeastern Parkway, the VA-168 widening, widening all of US-460 Military Highway in the City, widening all of I-64 and I-664 in the City, and others)

Each Master Transportation Plan & Land Use Plans released in the past had public input. Once the feasibility study is completed for upgrading US 17 into I-87, public input will be heard, and the plan will be updated.

This highway has been touted by N.C. as the "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor".  Why should it simply devolve into ramps in Chesapeake just before it connects to the Interstate highway that connects into downtown Norfolk?  That makes no sense from an Interstate highway corridor standpoint.

The interstate would end at I-64 / I-464, which would take traffic to Downtown Norfolk.

You yourself have even suggested replacing the I-464 designation with I-87.

And if they wanted to, they could route it through the existing ramps. Southbound I-464 to US 17 has a two-lane high-speed connection. Northbound has a one-lane high-speed connection that can be re-striped to be two-lanes. There's nothing within existing Interstate highway standards that prohibits this.

I never made the claim that they are prohibited on an Interstate highway, as they are not;

You're the one who kept saying I-87 couldn't be signed until they're removed, I.E. saying they're against interstate standards. If they meet interstate standards, then it can be signed. Simple.

but there are safety issues, they are obsolete, and it is just plain crappy engineering on a 21st century Interstate highway general purpose roadway.

The southbound left exit is a 55 MPH to another major freeway, VA-168. It's not obsolete nor is it a safety issue. Traffic flows freely at 60+ MPH regularly through here, and there's full shoulders. North Carolina has plenty of 21st century built left exits on newer interstates, has proper "Left Exit" signage, and it's adequate. I-73 in Greensboro was built as a new freeway, and connects to the older I-73 via a single lane 25 MPH loop ramp. Now granted, continuity purposes, makes no sense, but it's allowed via interstate standards.

The "single lane roadway northbound" I referred to is the ramp connecting US-17 to I-464.

Correct, and it's designed to carry two-lanes if needed. See my example above about I-73 going through a 25 MPH loop ramp. Not preferred, but can still be signed as such. I suppose you'll just call NCDOT "cheap" though.

Highway engineers don't consider right-hand ramps to be "pointless", they consider them to be modern 21st century Interstate highway standards.  Left-hand ramps are considered to be an obsolete and substandard engineering concept that violates driver expectancy.  (Where is Mr. Lansford when you need him?  )

On new construction, they shouldn't be used. When an existing freeway is adequately operating as is, has a high-speed left exit onto another freeway, proper signage, it can maintain that. Funny, they still use left exits even in new construction interstates. But apparently it's now prohibited from this specific interchange.

WB (Inner Loop) I-64 to SB US-17 -- the Inner Loop of I-64 Hampton Roads Beltway is the direction heading toward Bowers Hill, the Outer Loop is that heading toward VA Beach.

Actually, it's eastbound, that's what confused me. Westbound (heading towards VA Beach) is eventually heading towards Hampton, Williamsburg, Richmond, and so on, I.E. westbound. But technically it's actually heading (eastbound, inner loop) west.

The connection I am referring to is now handled by a tight one-lane loop ramp between the Inner Loop and US-17.

The plan to upgrade the I-64 / I-464 interchange via the I-64 Phase 2 improvements retains this, but removes the weaving. I don't prefer it either, but that could end up being redone to feature a semi-direction to VA-168 / US 17 Southbound. Either way, it's fully within interstate highway standards, and would not prevent I-87 from being signposted.

It's hyper-advocacy VI-87 rhetoric, that's strictly it.  Making up your own Interstate standards, proposing cheapened designs that uses ramp designs when mainline designs are indicated.  Whacking urban interchanges that appear to be needed or at least strongly desirable.

If there is to be a "Raleigh to Norfolk Interstate corridor", then it needs to be done **RIGHT**, and that would include the US-17/I-64/I-464 junction upgrades that I detailed.

Doing Interstate highways *RIGHT* means ample and robust designs that will be adequate for 20 years or more, not designs that at best just barely squeak by with a minimum, tolerable standard of today's needs.

The Interstate standards I've used ARE the official interstate standards, I'm not making them up. The high speed 55 MPH left exit to VA-168 Southbound is extremely within capacity and would continue being so. Re-locating it to the right doesn't benefit anything or fix traffic.

There's nothing inadequate about the existing interchange, but for some reason you think there's daily backups there due to poor design and right exits would fix these phantom issues.

The more it gets discussed the more I am opposing it, and I will be engaging VDOT, CTB and HRTPO on this matter.

By all means, please do. Contacting someone who can actually do something about it, instead of constantly flooding this forum why the interstate is vanity, I think for over a year now.

Might want to add Chesapeake to the list, they're going to get onto this proposal likely over the next 5-10 years, especially when NCDOT begins constructing between Elizabeth City and Virginia line. They'll likely want to push for funding to extend the freeway to I-64, creating a continuous corridor from I-64 to Elizabeth City.

It would be disappointing if an I-87 just dead-ended at the state line, and all concepts, discussions, studies, collaborating with NCDOT, and creating a southerly interstate connection which is currently lacking from Hampton Roads which they want to get done eventually, all dropped by your comments, but I suppose that's what you're wishing for. Can't argue with that.

The route number itself that the Tar Heel State has chosen is screwed up.  The original I-44 made sense as an even number for a mostly east-west highway.  An odd number is for a north-south route like I-87 and it does not make sense and puts the capstone on the regurgitate.

Something we can actually agree with. But that doesn't change the routing either way.

A basic cloverleaf interchange of that type does not meet current Interstate standards for a very busy 4-way Interstate-to-Interstate interchange, and mere "ramps" are not an adequate design for the mainline of the N.C. touted "Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate corridor".  Adequate for 1970, but not a 21st century Interstate design.

You are just trying to chop away needed and modern features of Interstate highway design, in your business advocacy of trying to find the fastest way to gain approval of your red-white-and-blue route trailblazers.

Ultimately it will be VDOT engineers as to who decides what meets Interstate highway standards on Dominion Blvd. and the connection to I-464.  My initial discussions with them is that it is not / does not.

Not going to repeat the same back and forth, see my comments above.

Going back to the roadway itself...if 2500ft is the narrowest radius on the US 17 curves, that comes out to just under a 65mph design speed at 0% superelevation.  Assuming NCDOT (or VDOT...sprjus wasn't specific on which section of US 17 he was estimating curve radius on) used 0.2% superelevation for water run-off, none of the curves with less than a ~3200ft radius would meet a 70 MPH design speed.

Virginia's section. North Carolina's will be posted at 70 MPH from Raleigh to the Virginia border, and carry a 75 MPH design speed.

A speed study will ultimately determine what happens. If it's determined a 70 MPH posted speed is safe, then it will be posted. If it's determined it's not, it won't be. That will have to be determined at a later point.

I don't understand how NCDOT can claim a 75 mph design speed on VI-87, but less on a rebuilt/widened I-95, given how little horizontal and vertical curvature is on I-95.

The existing speed limit is 65 MPH, and they wish to keep it that way, and not increase it. The goal for I-87 is a 70 MPH speed limit, so they wish to design it as such.

I looked at some of the plates on their feasibility study, and was disappointed in the proposal for 2 of the nonlimited-access sections to be upgraded to Interstate standards.  These have a long row of houses on each side and close to the highway.  I detailed how it was done Jarratt to VA-35 on I-95.  This is nothing like that, just acquiring limited access on the existing highway, squeezing in a new service road between the highway and the houses on one side, and building a service road behind the houses on the other side.  I'm sure those residents will just love having an Interstate highway right in front of their houses... and it is hard to imagine how they are going to design that segment for 75 mph.  Probably just a way to produce a feasibility study with low-balled total cost.  Likely won't survive EIS/location studies/public involvement process with those segments being designed like that; much higher treatments needed.

A few of the non-limited-access upgrades show alternatives with new location as well. There's one section that only has an upgraded section proposed, and is non-limited-access, between Hertford and Edenton. The proposal shows using the existing southbound roadway as the mainline northbound lanes, constructing new mainline southbound lanes + service road in some area. The existing northbound roadway would be converted to a 2-way continuous frontage road. Same design as I-95. Even if they did "squeeze" a frontage road, it would likely acquire the property fully, just like on I-95, you're assuming it would remain. The alternatives with upgrades and new location proposed, it was usually cheaper for new location due to extensive impact, so I'm not considering that.

The study shows a lot of curvature being realigned to have a higher design speed, just like I-95, at least on the upgrade only alternatives. Again, I didn't really consider where new locations where proposed, because that's likely the alternative to be selected, because of cheaper costs, due to extensive impact for an upgrade. You seem to think all the curvature is remaining in location.

The official designs, not your made up ones, will likely go through the NEPA process, because it was done by AECOM, a major engineering firm and fully evaluated to modern 21st century interstate 75 MPH design standards as you say, over the course of almost 4 years, starting in 2015, before I-87 even got approved. Business advocates as you claim did not whip up the study you know. Low-balled cost-estimates wouldn't have been made either. It may rise, but that's due to inflation.

They've used these construction techniques and 70 MPH speed limits on interstates before... Just like VDOT, they too are a transportation department, manage an entire state, thousands of miles of highways, and conduct NEPA processes, design, and construct new freeways, urban and rural. They might abide to a different standard, or lower standard than VDOT, but nothing says it doesn't meet design speed or interstate standards.

And -not- before these upgrades are built!

So the existing design breaks interstate standards (which it doesn't) therefore preventing it from being signed? If it meets interstate standards, even minimal, it can be signed. VDOT does a lot of additional work on the interstates, and way higher designs than required usually. It's nice, but it's not required, and can still be signed as existing. It would obviously reduce costs, but it's not "obsolete" or "inadequate", I've mentioned several times the existing interchange handles traffic flow well, has full shoulders, minimum 45 MPH speed ramps, at least south of I-64. The inadequate ramps at I-64 / I-464 would be fixed under the I-64 improvement, not an I-87 upgrade. I think you're just used to that approach of it.

[sprjus4]

If I-87 were to run up I-464, here is a concept that would make it continuous 4-lanes throughout, going northbound. The southbound lanes are already 2-lanes free flowing.

The I-464 bridge replacement would likely be constructed part of the I-464 / I-64 Interchange Reconstruction proposed under I-64 Phase #2.

This interchange modification to make I-87 2 lanes northbound would likely cost about $15 - 25 million. It simply adds about 2-5 feet of pavement on either side in some areas, though most pavement already exists, along with some re-striping. It also makes the I-64 WB (Outer Loop) towards VA Beach ramp 2-lanes off I-87 instead of the existing 1. The bridge replacement over I-464 + 1/2 mile of widening would likely cost $20 - 35 million, but would likely be done under the other project. In fact, this re-striping could be added to the budget of the other project as well, for capacity improvements.

If both the 2 lane re-striping and bridge replacement were done under one I-87 project, I'd estimate $35 - 60 million. Though, the I-464 bridge replacement would not be necessary, as the VA-168 Northbound lane could merge into I-87 NB and still use the existing bridge, though ideally, 3 lanes across would be preferred.

[Beltway]

There was no response about the upgrades of the at-grade section of Dominion Blvd.

I will of course leave it up to EIS/Location studies to determine what exactly needs to be done, but for a 2040 or 2045 design year my proposal would seem to be warranted, at least as a preliminary design starting point, for an ample and robust freeway design for the design year that well serves the local and business area.

At this point it would appear that a tight interchange would be indicated at US-17 and Grassfield Parkway, and at US-17 and Scenic Parkway, possibly with C-D roadways connecting the two, or C-D roadways connecting Grassfield Parkway and Cedar Road.  Rebuild the US-17 profile to pass over Grassfield Parkway, and over Scenic Parkway, use retaining walls (or MSE walls) to restrict the width of the roadway prism. 

They've used these construction techniques and 70 MPH speed limits on interstates before... Just like VDOT, they too are a transportation department, manage an entire state, thousands of miles of highways, and conduct NEPA processes, design, and construct new freeways, urban and rural. They might abide to a different standard, or lower standard than VDOT, but nothing says it doesn't meet design speed or interstate standards.

Left exits and entrances on Interstate highways in N.C. are -not- common as you asserted; they are rare. 

Major Interstate splits and joins aren't generally considered to be a left-hand movement.

Contacting someone who can actually do something about it, instead of constantly flooding this forum why the interstate is vanity, I think for over a year now.

More like November 2018 when I started digging more into it.  Then you started making yourself into a piñata.  I am far from the only critic of this project here, and other than your floods, I have had little in the way of opposition to my comments here.

And -not- before these upgrades are built!

So the existing design breaks interstate standards (which it doesn't) therefore preventing it from being signed? If it meets interstate standards, even minimal, it can be signed. VDOT does a lot of additional work on the interstates, and way higher designs than required usually. It's nice, but it's not required, and can still be signed as existing. It would obviously reduce costs, but it's not "obsolete" or "inadequate", I've mentioned several times the existing interchange handles traffic flow well, has full shoulders, minimum 45 MPH speed ramps, at least south of I-64. The inadequate ramps at I-64 / I-464 would be fixed under the I-64 improvement, not an I-87 upgrade. I think you're just used to that approach of it.

The highway engineering guiding design principle thruout the Interstate system program and with highway projects in general, is to not just design the highway for today's needs, but for a design year at least 20 years in the future.  What you seem to think are "way higher designs than required usually", is just designing it for the design year.

You wouldn't believe how "overdesigned" most of VA I-81 was for its first 15 years or so, my opinion back then was that the rural sections should have been built with 2 lanes on a 4-lane right-of-way (and back in those days some were built that way), traffic volumes were that low!!  In 1975 there was 5,000 to 8,000 AADT on a lot of the rural mileage.   But the designers were wise enough to look 20+ years into the future.

So don't think about what might barely meet Interstate standards today, think about what is needed in 2040 or 2045.  The interchange of I-64, I-464, US-17 and VA-168 will need a massive upgrade to meet the traffic demands of 2040.   I will leave it up to the project engineers to determine exactly what needs to be done, but it is safe to say that what is there now will be profoundly inadequate in 2040, especially with an all-freeway US-17 feeding into it.  Plus advisory signed 45 mph ramps are not an Interstate mainline.

It is good that you have some ideas (another post) about how expand the US-17/I-464 thru movement, but I think you are dreaming if you think that $15 to $60 million will address the needs of 2040 or 2045.  The kind of upgrade this interchange will need for all of its legs will probably be in the $200 to $300 million range in today's dollars.  Charge 1/3 or 1/4 of that to VI-87 should that be built, which again could be 2030 to 2040.

While you can debate whether the interchange meets Interstate standards today, it surely will not in 2040 without major upgrades and expansion.

[NE2]

Major freeway splits and joins aren't generally considered to be a left-hand movement.

Fixed for you.

sprjus: would you be opposed to a split at Williamston, making this L-shaped route a combination of two logical corridors of Norfolk-Wilmington and Raleigh-OBX?

[sprjus4]

There was no response about the upgrades of the at-grade section of Dominion Blvd.

I will of course leave it up to EIS/Location studies to determine what exactly needs to be done, but for a 2040 or 2045 design year my proposal would seem to be warranted, at least as a preliminary design starting point, for an ample and robust freeway design for the design year that well serves the local and business area.

At this point it would appear that a tight interchange would be indicated at US-17 and Grassfield Parkway, and at US-17 and Scenic Parkway, possibly with C-D roadways connecting the two, or C-D roadways connecting Grassfield Parkway and Cedar Road.  Rebuild the US-17 profile to pass over Grassfield Parkway, and over Scenic Parkway, use retaining walls (or MSE walls) to restrict the width of the roadway prism.

I didn't respond to it because I'm not trying to start another back and forth argument, but since you want a piece out of me... I don't see the need for an interchange there as other roadways would be handle the traffic adequately. But, if one was to be built, elevating an additional half mile of US-17 between Cedar Rd and just south of Grassfield Pkwy with retaining wall and tight urban ramps would be the answer. Scenic Pkwy, about 1 mile from here would have it's own interchange, as there's enough room for an auxiliary lane from the Grassfield Pkwy & Scenic Pkwy ramp terminals.



Probably about $20 - 30 million. It's not really a complex interchange design.

Left exits and entrances on Interstate highways in N.C. are -not- common as you asserted; they are rare. 

Major Interstate splits and joins aren't generally considered to be a left-hand movement.

Then how come the new I-73 north of Greensboro that was completed last year has a left entrance north of Greensboro, from NC 68?

The left exits / entrances in question here for the existing US 17 / I-64 interchange are major freeway splits, like local roadways.

More like November 2018 when I started digging more into it.  Then you started making yourself into a piñata.  I am far from the only critic of this project here, and other than your floods, I have had little in the way of opposition to my comments here.

Every project has critics, every project has supporters. You seem to act like I'm the only supporter, and everybody opposes it. This discussion over the past few months has been mainly me and you back and forth, and a couple other people backing you, and a couple with mutual opinions. Some may not agree with the whole interstate routing concept, but not everybody is opposed to a US-17 freeway upgrade. At this point, that's what this is about.

And you've touted this whole thing being vanity and useless ever since early 2018. Recently, you've added your tag line "VI-87".

The highway engineering guiding design principle thruout the Interstate system program and with highway projects in general, is to not just design the highway for today's needs, but for a design year at least 20 years in the future.  What you seem to think are "way higher designs than required usually", is just designing it for the design year.

The existing (not a new construction) interchange is adequate today, and your proposed design changes on the US 17 / I-464 movement (not the I-64 interchange, that is getting a major overhaul in the way of I-64 upgrades, which again, you seem to ignore) would not add any capacity. You want to relocate free-flowing 45 - 55 MPH freeway to freeway ramps to the right on retaining wall, replace overpasses to make way for them, yet that doesn't "address needs for 2040". Is the left free-flowing 45 - 55 MPH exit going to have a severe backup whereas a right exit at 55 MPH will move fine? Your logic makes no sense. If you're referring to the I-64 interchange, that's a completely separate project, as I've mentioned several times.

You wouldn't believe how "overdesigned" most of VA I-81 was for its first 15 years or so, my opinion back then was that the rural sections should have been built with 2 lanes on a 4-lane right-of-way (and back in those days some were built that way), traffic volumes were that low!!  In 1975 there was 5,000 to 8,000 AADT on a lot of the rural mileage.   But the designers were wise enough to look 20+ years into the future.

Horrible example. New construction interstate, carrying traffic over vast distances. We're discussing an existing interchange where your proposed improvements would not add capacity, but only satisfy your hate for left, 45 - 55 MPH high-speed freeway to freeway connections that are multi-lane or designed for multi-lane. You believe 55 MPH to the right would have way higher capacity than a left exit. You act like traffic currently has to slow to 30 MPH to take the left exit, and it would hinder traffic on the mainline. The current interchange has traffic moving at full freeway speed and is a multi-lane split off.

So don't think about what might barely meet Interstate standards today, think about what is needed in 2040 or 2045.  The interchange of I-64, I-464, US-17 and VA-168 will need a massive upgrade to meet the traffic demands of 2040.   I will leave it up to the project engineers to determine exactly what needs to be done, but it is safe to say that what is there now will be profoundly inadequate in 2040, especially with an all-freeway US-17 feeding into it.  Plus advisory signed 45 mph ramps are not an Interstate mainline.

Again, what massive improvements are needed to a free-flowing interchange? More lanes? You act like this is a brand new interchange being built and is to be designed well into the future. You're simply adding a designation to an existing interchange & freeway.

Your 45 MPH claim goes against urban interstate standards which states a minimum design speed of 50 MPH is to be used in urban areas, I.E. posted speed 45 MPH.

Completely rebuilding and realigning a ramp which would rebuild overpasses, etc. to hold a slightly faster speed is a waste of money, and adds little or no capacity, when an existing ramp exists. If Dominion Blvd did not exist, and I-87 was building brand new freeway to tie into the interchange, then of course, by all means, a $200 million expansion to seamlessly tie in US-17. But it's already there, and your project satisfies your hope of a 55 MPH speed limit.

It is good that you have some ideas (another post) about how expand the US-17/I-464 thru movement, but I think you are dreaming if you think that $15 to $60 million will address the needs of 2040 or 2045.  The kind of upgrade this interchange will need for all of its legs will probably be in the $200 to $300 million range in today's dollars.  Charge 1/3 or 1/4 of that to VI-87 should that be built, which again could be 2030 to 2040.

While you can debate whether the interchange meets Interstate standards today, it surely will not in 2040 without major upgrades and expansion.

Could you draw up a concept map like I've done in the past to show where new ramps would be needed, and how it will address 2040 capacity? I'm curious to know what your ideas are, because you keep saying these $200 million projects, yet you offer no justification to where they would be needed, how it will add capacity, and how the existing interchange fails to provide that capacity proposed to be added.

ScribbleMaps is a good tool, basic, free, and easy to use.

Major freeway splits and joins aren't generally considered to be a left-hand movement.

Fixed for you.

sprjus: would you be opposed to a split at Williamston, making this L-shaped route a combination of two logical corridors of Norfolk-Wilmington and Raleigh-OBX?

No, actually I'd support that. A U.S. 17 upgrade might seem unreasonable to some for a Norfolk - Raleigh routing, but it also gets 80 miles out of the way for a Wilmington routing. I'd like to see a freeway down the coast along U.S. 17, and was hoping the 2-lane portion between Williamston and Washington would be bypassed by freeway / limited-access highway, but instead it's a non-limited-access existing 4-lane widening.

[NE2]

sprjus: would you be opposed to a split at Williamston, making this L-shaped route a combination of two logical corridors of Norfolk-Wilmington and Raleigh-OBX?

No, actually I'd support that. A U.S. 17 upgrade might seem unreasonable to some for a Norfolk - Raleigh routing, but it also gets 80 miles out of the way for a Wilmington routing.

80 miles out of the way compared to what other route?

I'd like to see a freeway down the coast along U.S. 17, and was hoping the 2-lane portion between Williamston and Washington would be bypassed by freeway / limited-access highway, but instead it's a non-limited-access existing 4-lane widening. I'm still questioning whether a U.S. 64 freeway to OBX is needed, due to traffic volumes, but then again they did recently construct almost 30 miles of freeway, and that included upgrading about 10 miles of existing 2-lane road not to 4-lanes, but to full freeway standards w/ frontage roads & interchanges.

So why the need to put the two together into an indirect Raleigh-Norfolk route? What's wrong with upgrading US 17 as a Wilmington-Norfolk route?

[sprjus4]

80 miles out of the way compared to what other route?

The I-87 project will upgrade 80 miles of US 17 to interstate standards, 80 miles less to upgrade later on. In fact, if Virginia builds their connection to I-64, it would be 97 miles.

The context I used "out of the way", I was meaning "completed".

So why the need to put the two together into an indirect Raleigh-Norfolk route? What's wrong with upgrading US 17 as a Wilmington-Norfolk route?

To connect eastern NC to I-95 and Raleigh. From Hampton Roads, using existing speed limits (subject to change in future), it takes 2 hours 12 minutes via US 58, and would take 2 hours 17 minutes via I-87 in the future. I've also crunched above different speed limit changes that could make this routing have a closer time, for instance, if raised to 70 MPH in Virginia after appropriate studies are conducted, and the routing is a full freeway, it would be 2 hours 14 minutes, a two minute difference. With the little amount of time difference, it's not an out of way routing for a majority of motorists. It would be out of the way if it was a difference of lets say, 10 minutes or more. It's not a safe bet to use speed limits though, as they could change in the future, but either way US 17 is getting 80 miles in NC upgraded, and likely 17 miles in VA. I'm not going to argue about this though, for the umpteenth time, sure it'll be 20 minutes slower, as critics claim.

Either way, at this point it's just a shield. Either way - 97 miles of US 17 get upgraded to interstate standards, and might extend farther south to Wilmington, which would tie into a Carolina Bays Parkway freeway extension connecting to all the way south of Myrtle Beach. But some might say a four-lane arterial highway adequately serves the corridor, so all bets are off. 

[NE2]

From Hampton Roads, using existing speed limits (subject to change in future), it takes 2 hours 12 minutes via US 58, and would take 2 hours 17 minutes via I-87 in the future.

Still talking bullshit, I see.

[sprjus4]

From Hampton Roads, using existing speed limits (subject to change in future), it takes 2 hours 12 minutes via US 58, and would take 2 hours 17 minutes via I-87 in the future.

Still talking bullshit, I see.

Prove me wrong, and show your work. I used each segments speed limit (the exact distance of 35, 45, 55, and 60 zones on US 58), and accurate distances between Nash Community College (west of I-95) and Berkeley Bridge. Applied a consistent speed of 70 MPH on NC I-87, and 60 MPH on VA I-87.

I didn't make up numbers or fudge it.

If you'd like, I'll post my work. It displays distances for each speed segment, the speed limit applied, time in decimals, and time converted into minutes. The time's added up to the end, and an average speed formula (distance / time). I'd like to see your work.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Long story, reasonably short: NE NC interests & NCDOT simply got together in 2016 and decided to make an Interstate out of the then-25-year-old High Priority Corridor #13; that particular die had been cast when the eastern portion of US 64 past Tarboro, constructed post-ISTEA, was built to Interstate standards when the previously-constructed segments from Raleigh to Tarboro had not (substandard shoulders & lines of sight).  It was only a matter of time; but with all the other I-corridors around the country having been given the congressional "green light" in the previous years, they decided the iron was hot enough to strike.  They were right; after the designation bullshit (I-87 my ass!) subsided, they had their corridor, even if VA didn't step up on their final 17+ miles.  "Piggybacking" (an appropriate term) on an existing HPC was the easiest way to get it through the approval process, so that is what occurred.  Now -- it's clear, from NCDOT's "master plan", that the entirety of US 17 in the state is slated for future development to full freeway standards (although a few segments are being developed otherwise in the interim to satisfy short-term local demands) -- so I for one wouldn't be surprised to see the erstwhile "I-87" split into two down the line -- the N-S portion along US 17 and the E-W segment along US 64, with the junction at Williamston; what the designations would be at that time is simply a matter of conjecture at this point.  But if NCDOT can possibly snag some federal funds for the current I-87 route, they're certain to do so without reservations -- although they have broader goals in mind for the long haul.   

[sprjus4]

^^^^^^^^^
Long story, reasonably short: NE NC interests & NCDOT simply got together in 2016 and decided to make an Interstate out of the then-25-year-old High Priority Corridor #13; that particular die had been cast when the eastern portion of US 64 past Tarboro, constructed post-ISTEA, was built to Interstate standards when the previously-constructed segments from Raleigh to Tarboro had not (substandard shoulders & lines of sight).  It was only a matter of time; but with all the other I-corridors around the country having been given the congressional "green light" in the previous years, they decided the iron was hot enough to strike.  They were right; after the designation bullshit (I-87 my ass!) subsided, they had their corridor, even if VA didn't step up on their final 17+ miles.  "Piggybacking" (an appropriate term) on an existing HPC was the easiest way to get it through the approval process, so that is what occurred.  Now -- it's clear, from NCDOT's "master plan", that the entirety of US 17 in the state is slated for future development to full freeway standards (although a few segments are being developed otherwise in the interim to satisfy short-term local demands) -- so I for one wouldn't be surprised to see the erstwhile "I-87" split into two down the line -- the N-S portion along US 17 and the E-W segment along US 64, with the junction at Williamston; what the designations would be at that time is simply a matter of conjecture at this point.  But if NCDOT can possibly snag some federal funds for the current I-87 route, they're certain to do so without reservations -- although they have broader goals in mind for the long haul.   

To sum it up - it's getting built, at least the 80 miles in NC. VA may extend it 17 miles to I-64 in the future, but it's going to get built in NC, any way you slice it.

so I for one wouldn't be surprised to see the erstwhile "I-87" split into two down the line

A U.S. 17 freeway may continue south, though the I-87 designation will always continue to run from Virginia to Raleigh, as approved by FHWA and AASHTO in May 2016.

But if NCDOT can possibly snag some federal funds for the current I-87 route, they're certain to do so without reservations -- although they have broader goals in mind for the long haul.   

Because it doesn't follow US 58, it's not eligible for any federal funding and will not be allowed to be constructed, even though FHWA approved the I-87 designation to begin with, and is eligible for federal funding because it's part of the National Interstate Highway System. Now, they don't approve construction permits on Interstate Highway System projects that they authorized to begin with

Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.

How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?

They can withhold federal funding, refuse to sign EIS and ROD.

They can refuse funding, but they wouldn't not sign EIS and ROD simply because "it doesn't connect directly to Norfolk". If the state funds it, then they wouldn't refuse to sign because of that.

If the only perceived "justification" that FHWA can see is putative "economic development", then they can and may well refuse to sign.

[froggie]

Because it doesn't follow US 58, it's not eligible for any federal funding and will not be allowed to be constructed, even though FHWA approved the I-87 designation to begin with, and is eligible for federal funding because it's part of the National Interstate Highway System.

Correcting a few misconceptions here:

- US 58, like US 17, is eligible for certain categories of Federal highway funding.  It is up to the respective state DOTs whether or not to use their allotted portion of Federal highway funding on those routes.

- FHWA did not approve the I-87 designation.  AASHTO did.  FHWA typically defers to AASHTO for route numbering, but FHWA holds final say on when (and if) segments of roadway are actually officially added to the Interstate system.

- There is no such thing as the "National Interstate Highway System", certainly not in the context you tried to use it here.  You're probably thinking of the National Highway System (or NHS), which is a funding category under FHWA.  It automatically includes the Interstates, but roughly 75% of NHS mileage is non-Interstate.  Both US 58 and US 17 are on the NHS.

[sprjus4]

- US 58, like US 17, is eligible for certain categories of Federal highway funding.  It is up to the respective state DOTs whether or not to use their allotted portion of Federal highway funding on those routes.

- There is no such thing as the "National Interstate Highway System", certainly not in the context you tried to use it here.  You're probably thinking of the National Highway System (or NHS), which is a funding category under FHWA.  It automatically includes the Interstates, but roughly 75% of NHS mileage is non-Interstate.  Both US 58 and US 17 are on the NHS.

The Interstate Highway System gets special funding over U.S. Routes. I'm aware of what NHS is, thank you. I don't see how you got I was going for NHS when I said "national Interstate Highway System" and was referring to I-87, not US 17.

- FHWA did not approve the I-87 designation.  AASHTO did.  FHWA typically defers to AASHTO for route numbering, but FHWA holds final say on when (and if) segments of roadway are actually officially added to the Interstate system.

Incorrect. FHWA could've shot down AASHTO's decision, but they didn't. FHWA has the final say, whether the designation goes or not, and AASHTO makes the recommendations. AASHTO is not an official gov't body you know, FHWA is. And to your point, they did approve 13 miles to be added to the official Interstate Highway System, between I-40 and US 64 Business east of Knightdale back in February 2017, and decommissioned I-495 permanently in favor of this routing. Since September 2017, Official blue and red I-87 shields are posted along this stretch. Once US 64 is widened to 6 lanes to the US 264 split in Zebulon, it will be constructed to Interstate Highway standards and designed I-87.

If they didn't want the interstate, they could've shot down AASHTO's decision, and not approve I-87 designation along US 64 freeway east of Knightdale. The entire highway is officially designated as Future I-87 as well to the Virginia State Line. I highly doubt FHWA would disapprove additions to the system along US-17, just because of anti-interstate rhetoric saying these towns are not eligible to be on the interstate system, and because the route is slightly longer, is not permitted to be apart of the system, even though they approved it in May 2016. It's come to the point where it's not only a dislike of the highway, it's a full on push to get the interstate designation deleted, and to keep US-17 a four-lane arterial highway, even if NCDOT wishes to upgrade it, or at least that's what it seems like, by the comments saying FHWA should refuse any upgrade construction permits and designations. It's pretty sad honestly, IMO.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
As I've averred previously, the entire premise for the numerical I-87 designation was spurious from the beginning -- basically NCDOT simply trying to avoid renumbering of one or more state highways -- a priority that was summarily shot down by AASHTO, which inexplicably retained the N-S rather than E-W corridor rationalization and ended up going through NCDOT's original "I-89" request and subbing I-87 (I still think an open bar at the Des Moines SCOURN meeting may well account for that lapse of logic -- but they sobered up enough to very appropriately designate I-42 later in the agenda!).  The designation of I-87 is an administrative one but also congressionally approved via the Interstate codicil added to the HPC-13 language -- but like any such decision, can be reversed or changed by revising and/or adding language to the relevant code section.  If the corridor does eventually split as I've projected, it's likely I-87 will either disappear and be replaced by a more grid-appropriate number (a somewhat more southern I-97 comes to mind!) or simply extend down to Wilmington or even Myrtle Beach, with the E-W portion along US 64 getting an even 2di from the available pool.

When and if that occurs, it's more likely -- although certainly not a "lock" -- that VA, if it hasn't done so to date, will accede (maybe grudgingly) to an Interstate upgrade of US 17 in Chesapeake; an Atlantic corridor makes a more compelling rationale than a backwards L-shaped corridor heading toward Raleigh -- something a bit more useful for VA/Hampton Roads travelers and commerce than an indirect alternate route toward I-95 and I-40.       

[sprjus4]

^^^^^^^^^
As I've averred previously, the entire premise for the numerical I-87 designation was spurious from the beginning -- basically NCDOT simply trying to avoid renumbering of one or more state highways -- a priority that was summarily shot down by AASHTO, which inexplicably retained the N-S rather than E-W corridor rationalization and ended up going through NCDOT's original "I-89" request and subbing I-87 (I still think an open bar at the Des Moines SCOURN meeting may well account for that lapse of logic -- but they sobered up enough to very appropriately designate I-42 later in the agenda!).  The designation of I-87 is an administrative one but also congressionally approved via the Interstate codicil added to the HPC-13 language -- but like any such decision, can be reversed or changed by revising and/or adding language to the relevant code section.  If the corridor does eventually split as I've projected, it's likely I-87 will either disappear and be replaced by a more grid-appropriate number (a somewhat more southern I-97 comes to mind!) or simply extend down to Wilmington or even Myrtle Beach, with the E-W portion along US 64 getting an even 2di from the available pool.

I do agree it would be interesting to see a coastal interstate along US 17. Any number it goes, we know now that at least 80 miles of US 17 will be upgraded to 75 MPH interstate standards, which is a big step towards a full build out.

When and if that occurs, it's more likely -- although certainly not a "lock" -- that VA, if it hasn't done so to date, will accede (maybe grudgingly) to an Interstate upgrade of US 17 in Chesapeake; an Atlantic corridor makes a more compelling rationale than a backwards L-shaped corridor heading toward Raleigh -- something a bit more useful for VA/Hampton Roads travelers and commerce than an indirect alternate route toward I-95 and I-40.

The quickest way to hop from the coastal corridor to I-95 South would be a US 64 freeway, I.E. where I-87 is going now. I wouldn't necessarily call it "indirect" overcome by travel time as refuted above, at least for travelers, but while it might not benefit freight heading towards I-95, it would spur faster travel on US 17 where I-95 might barely overcome that now (I.E. heading inland to I-95 via US 58, then back out), and will certainly have significant freight traffic on the US 17 portion, as US 17 is already a big trucking route, and would grow especially if the interstate is built for the reasons I've described.

[Rothman]

- US 58, like US 17, is eligible for certain categories of Federal highway funding.  It is up to the respective state DOTs whether or not to use their allotted portion of Federal highway funding on those routes.

- There is no such thing as the "National Interstate Highway System", certainly not in the context you tried to use it here.  You're probably thinking of the National Highway System (or NHS), which is a funding category under FHWA.  It automatically includes the Interstates, but roughly 75% of NHS mileage is non-Interstate.  Both US 58 and US 17 are on the NHS.

The Interstate Highway System gets special funding over U.S. Routes.

Not as much as it used to.  This all changed with MAP-21, so you are about six years or so behind.

The only advantage Interstates have now is being able to use National Highway Performance Program funding at a 90% match instead of 80%.  That said, states now receive just one blob of NHPP.  Theoretically, they could not spend anything on the Interstates.

The days of separate apportionments for Interstate funding are over and have been for quite some time.

[Beltway]

Was this the left entrance mentioned on NC I-73?  I don't see anything else north of Greensboro.

The freeway becomes the nonlimited-access highway US-220 just above the top of this photo.  This design looks temporary, and something that would be reconfigured to something like this if the freeway was extended northward, and I am showing the likely way that ramp would be built to enter the right side of the freeway.

http://capital-beltway.com/I73-US220.jpg

Not a final design, just conceptual.

[hbelkins]

I'm seeing this Virginia I-87 in much the same light as Virginia's portion of Corridor H (US 48).

The primary benefit for I-87 will fall to North Carolina. The primary benefit for Corridor H is in West Virginia.

Let NC build it's section of I-87 (upgrade US 17). Later on, if traffic warrants, Virginia will upgrade its section of US 17 to interstate standards. Likewise, Virginia won't do anything to its 14 or so miles of US 48 until WV gets its part finished and if traffic warrants.