Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[tolbs17]

From what I recall, 87 was picked not because of the possibility to connect to the New York I-87, but because it was the number with the least potential to cause confusion with a state route of the same number.

AASHTO disagrees.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html

NCDOT had initially requested to call the highway Interstate 89, but there's already one of those, too, in New Hampshire and Vermont. AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization's route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.

Both explanations are "CYA" rationalizations for less than due diligence on the part of SCOURN.  While they rejected NCDOT's selection of "I-89" for the NC/VA corridor, they accepted the odd-numbered rationale for a facility that's more E-W than N-S (I-85's presence to the west notwithstanding).  When NCDOT presented their rejection of the various even-numbered corridors simply because there were like-numbered state highways in the vicinity and they didn't want to have to renumber them (although the new I-42 and NC 42 don't seem to faze them -- even though they originally wanted I-50, then I-36, for the US 70 corridor!); AASHTO/SCOURN should have simply overridden that concept and subsequently chosen an unused even number between 40 and 64 (which would, to avoid conflict with US routes, mean 46, 54, or 56) and authorized such a number.   And if they still stuck to the odd-numbered concept, since most of the corridor lies east of I-95, they could have designated it I-97 -- where there's a hell of a better chance of connecting to the existing route than anything up in the northeast corner of the country!  I still think a blustery late-winter SCOURN meeting in Des Moines combined with an open or at worst cash bar may have contributed to the lack of rationality here  -- and having posted this surmising previously and seeing replies stating that yes, there's little to do in Des Moines outside of drinking during that time of year (although it's almost certain that some sarcasm is creeping in here! -- although I have been through there in March, and can attest to the gloomy weather).  Nevertheless, it'll likely be years if not decades before any (cough) I-87 shields show up north of Williamston (outside of "future" MGS's), so there's some chance things may change by that point, especially if NCDOT in the interim decides to pull the trigger on a comprehensive Interstate-grade US 17 upgrade between Williamston and Wilmington (and, given their track record, one could not put that past them!).  Evantually, I-87 may well go the way of the now-defunct I-495!     

I wish I-495 came back. I don't like I-87 designation at all. I don't understand why Raleigh and Norfolk needs a 2 digit interstate. bring back the Raleigh Connector!

Saying that, bring back I-595 to Greenville!

[sprjus4]

I wish I-495 came back. I don't like I-87 designation at all. I don't understand why Raleigh and Norfolk needs a 2 digit interstate. bring back the Raleigh Connector!

Saying that, bring back I-595 to Greenville!

You think Greenville should have an interstate leaving in all four directions, but Norfolk shouldn't get an interstate to the south... The Hampton Roads metro is 15x larger than Greenville... good luck trying to sell that.

[Beltway]

That's just wishful thinking on AASHTO's part. There's no way in hell the Eastern Shore would ever support an interstate there, especially Northampton County, which is notoriously NIMBY. Plus there's the little thing called the CBBT.
If VA does build their part of I-87 (very doubtful), I think it should take over I-464 and end at I-264.

Hopefully more than one state will have the common sense to not attempt to build a Vanity Interstate Highway.

[tolbs17]

I wish I-495 came back. I don't like I-87 designation at all. I don't understand why Raleigh and Norfolk needs a 2 digit interstate. bring back the Raleigh Connector!

Saying that, bring back I-595 to Greenville!

You think Greenville should have an interstate leaving in all four directions, but Norfolk shouldn't get an interstate to the south... The Hampton Roads metro is 15x larger than Greenville... good luck trying to sell that.

Yeah Norfolk should get an interstate, maybe I-99 from there to Wilmington hopefully but that part is unfinished. I guess I-87 would do the trick. when they finish upgrading the US 17 corridor.

[hotdogPi]

Nobody commented on my NC 54/I-54 idea. Do you think that would have worked well?

[sprjus4]

Nobody commented on my NC 54/I-54 idea. Do you think that would have worked well?

I'd say just renumber NC-54 to something else IF you were to do that. Extending NC-54 to follow an I-54 on the Norfolk-Raleigh routing would likely cause confusion.

[tolbs17]

Nobody commented on my NC 54/I-54 idea. Do you think that would have worked well?

To convert NC 54 to I-54? I think an I-x40 would work but i think they are all taken. So maybe an I-38 which is the not a wise choice.

[hotdogPi]

I was only suggesting that NC 54 would be extended to the point where the new Interstate (numbered 54) would start. There would be no 54/54 overlap, but it would have a continuous number. This is already done in New York.

[sprjus4]

I was only suggesting that NC 54 would be extended to the point where the new Interstate (numbered 54) would start. There would be no 54/54 overlap, but it would have a continuous number. This is already done in New York.

I suppose that could work... An east-west highway designation could work better for this corridor, though I really haven't had much issues with the way it is now... Then again I'm not so grid-strict as some other posters on here are. Other highways like I-99 that are off-grid don't bother me either.

[sparker]

I was only suggesting that NC 54 would be extended to the point where the new Interstate (numbered 54) would start. There would be no 54/54 overlap, but it would have a continuous number. This is already done in New York.

I suppose that could work... An east-west highway designation could work better for this corridor, though I really haven't had much issues with the way it is now... Then again I'm not so grid-strict as some other posters on here are. Other highways like I-99 that are off-grid don't bother me either.

My objections to the 87 designation are not so much regarding the grid as deliberate stupidity on the part of, first NCDOT re the state highway conflict (they should have done their homework and realized that such an argument would never stand) and then AASHTO's SCOURN regarding the retention of the N-S route rationale rather than the more appropriate E-W designation pool, from which a new rather than ill-reused number could be drawn.   2di route designation duplication had never previously occurred when there was an alternative to doing so;  this sets a very bad precedent. 

[vdeane]

Likewise, my objections to I-87 have nothing to do with the grid and everything to do with loathing the duplication of a 2di.  The duplicates are aberrations; we should be working to eliminate them, not add more of them (same for the suffixes, but that discussion relates to Texas).

[Strider]

lol at those who are objecting about 2di being out of grid, etc. guess what? it happens everywhere. Even some U.S. Routes are out of grid and yet you're still complaining... 

We are entitled to our opinions, obviously. I stopped objections about it a long time ago and learned to appreciate new route numbers.

I have no issues with Interstate/U.S. route numbers being out of grid as long as they connect from point A to B.

[roadman65]

lol at those who are objecting about 2di being out of grid, etc. guess what? it happens everywhere. Even some U.S. Routes are out of grid and yet you're still complaining... 

We are entitled to our opinions, obviously. I stopped objections about it a long time ago and learned to appreciate new route numbers.

I have no issues with Interstate/U.S. route numbers being out of grid as long as they connect from point A to B.

US 44 being north of US 6.  US 20 being north of US 6 and US 6 even dropping down below US 50.  Oh then US 59 that is west of US 71 (and US 73).

Hey we got folks boycotting Breezewood, PA despite that it will not put no dent whatsoever in their pocketbook.

Its a discussion board but some get so literal especially in fictional highways. 

[goobnav]

lol at those who are objecting about 2di being out of grid, etc. guess what? it happens everywhere. Even some U.S. Routes are out of grid and yet you're still complaining... 

We are entitled to our opinions, obviously. I stopped objections about it a long time ago and learned to appreciate new route numbers.

I have no issues with Interstate/U.S. route numbers being out of grid as long as they connect from point A to B.

US 44 being north of US 6.  US 20 being north of US 6 and US 6 even dropping down below US 50.  Oh then US 59 that is west of US 71 (and US 73).

Hey we got folks boycotting Breezewood, PA despite that it will not put no dent whatsoever in their pocketbook.

Its a discussion board but some get so literal especially in fictional highways. 

Better, US 13 is east of US 11 and US 1 for it's entire run from PA to NC.

I-87 is being built and is partially signed and will eventually travel to another state, not completely in the state of NY as it's northern counterpart, my suggestion is renumbering that road I-595.

[Beltway]

I have no issues with Interstate/U.S. route numbers being out of grid as long as they connect from point A to B.

I have issues with Vanity Interstate Highways.

[amroad17]

It does not bother Michigan and Ohio to not sign US (and state) freeways as Interstate highways (US 23, US 131, US 127, US 35, OH 11, and parts of US 30).  If these states were like North Carolina, US 23 would be I-875, US 131 would be I-296 (Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo), US 127 would be I-73, and US 35 would be either I-371 or an I-58.  In North Carolina, US 64 could remain as is along with US 17 if it is ever upgraded.

This is not to say that there could not be an Interstate highway from Raleigh to Norfolk.  One of my first posts was here in Fictional Highways suggesting an I-46 routing from Raleigh to Va. Beach.  My routing involved a new terrain route following NC 11 from near Bethel to Ahoskie, then following US 13 to the southwestern Suffolk Bypass, using that and having US 13/58/460 upgraded through the Dismal Swamp to I-264, following that until its end in Va. Beach.  This is kind of a long route like I-87, however, I, at the time, felt like its was "cutting a corner"--shortening some of the distance between Raleigh and Norfolk.  I also have envisioned another routing (also involving new terrain) leaving US 64 east of Rocky Mount, following NC 97 to US 258, following US 258 to east of Rich Square, following NC 305, NC 561, and NC 461 to US 13 north of Ahoskie, then following my fictional route of I-46.  This could even be called I-54 (I like that better as NC 54 would be west of Raleigh, this would be east of Raleigh, and VA 54 isn't anywhere near this Fictional I-54).  I was envisioning routes that would possibly be a quicker way to travel between these two areas than the two main ones that are currently discussed.

I do see why the route of I-87 was chosen as it involves mostly upgrades and not a lot of "new terrain" construction.  However, and I do not want an argumentative discussion on this, I feel that it is a "six of one, half dozen of the other" as far as distance and time to go from one area to the other once I-87 is ever completed.  It would depend on how a person wants to travel to go from one area to the other.  Driving either way will get a person from Raleigh to Norfolk within 15-20 minutes of each other--if one drives without breaks.  It will depend on whether a person wants a fairly leisurely drive (I-87) or one with a good amount of traffic (US 58/I-95).  It could also depend on the services available along these routings.

I also see why NC wants this--a way to possibly improve the areas in eastern NC with the free advertising of the Interstate logo.  I mean, I-87 will be in Virginia for, at the most, 23 miles verses the approximate 180 miles in NC.  This is why, other than budgetary reasons, is why Virginia is rather ambivalent on whether I-87 is completed or not.  Sure, it would be nice to see I-87 become a reality--mostly to assist those in eastern NC, however, I do not see it happening possibly within the next 50 years with the upgrades needed (see NY 17/I-86).  Plus, IMHO, it should have been numbered I-54, however, there is nothing that can be done about it now. 

[goobnav]

Actually I-87 was initially I-495 and made complete sense as a connector from I-95 to the Triangle area in NC from those traveling south on I-95 and not wanting to use I-85 and US 1 or going passed the area and backtracking on I-40.

The remaining almost interstate east of I-95 could have been easily upgraded and signed as I-595 to Williamston and if a bypass was constructed around Williamston and connected to the freeway to Columbia and continued the I-595 concept to there, possibly now I-387 and would give the OBX a direct interstate connection and evacuation route, US 64 will have the remaining 2 lane section turned into 4 lanes in the near future, interstate or not.

I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle. 

Not like I-76 (western) which only connects Denver and I-80 and only in Nebraska for max 2 miles.  I-86 (western) in Idaho connects Pocatello with I-84, should be I-684 or I-484.  I-86 (eastern) will be a redundancy to I-90 and I-80 and, is only in PA for about 8 miles.  I-99 is definitely a vanity Interstate and needs to be assigned a 3 digit ID.  I-97 in MD is pointless and should be given back it's MD 3 or be considered and extension of I-595 and actually signed, odd numbered 3 digits can still connect to Interstates on both ends especially if part of it is not signed.

Ok, rant over.

[hotdogPi]

I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle. 

If I drew a line from Macon to Jacksonville, that (fictional) Interstate would connect two major population centers (the northern one being Atlanta), but it would be redundant to I-75 and I-10.

[goobnav]

I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle. 

If I drew a line from Macon to Jacksonville, that (fictional) Interstate would connect two major population centers (the northern one being Atlanta), but it would be redundant to I-75 and I-10.

Yeah, what's I-87 redundant to?  E.g point?

[hotdogPi]

I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle. 

If I drew a line from Macon to Jacksonville, that (fictional) Interstate would connect two major population centers (the northern one being Atlanta), but it would be redundant to I-75 and I-10.

Yeah, what's I-87 redundant to?  E.g point?

I-95 and US 58

[goobnav]

I-87, vanity or not, has a purpose and will actually connect 2 major population centers, Tidewater and Triangle. 

If I drew a line from Macon to Jacksonville, that (fictional) Interstate would connect two major population centers (the northern one being Atlanta), but it would be redundant to I-75 and I-10.

Yeah, what's I-87 redundant to?  E.g point?

I-95 and US 58

It's apparent you've never been to NC, you forgot US 64.  Thank you for playing.

[froggie]

^ But I have been to NC.  Numerous times.  He's right...64/17 is redundant to 95/58, especially given the latter's shorter mileage.

[goobnav]

^ But I have been to NC.  Numerous times.  He's right...64/17 is redundant to 95/58, especially given the latter's shorter mileage.

Froggie, I know you're right but, they were only half right, , point of an argument is to have all the facts. 

Ending rant, .

[sprjus4]

I'd agree with the fact it is redundant over US-58 if US-58 was a freeway, but it's not. The extra mileage would be overcome by a higher speed limit, 70 mph, so you're not going to have this 15-20 minute gap that opposers to the road claim, it's going to be closer to a 2-4 minute gap (proven before, also did not factor in delay with traffic signals on US-58 which could decrease the gap further) You also have to figure the convenience factor of taking a freeway as opposed to an arterial that still has 45 mph urban segments with traffic signals, the fact that you avoid 55 miles of I-95, which if you're traveling at peak times is going to be slower than an I-87 routing, and that an I-87 routing would have less traffic and more enjoyable & relaxed of a drive rather than 55 miles of I-95 which can be quite packed sometimes and even congested occasionally.

So you can punch numbers in all day long and say that US-58 will always be the preferred routing. Using reality though, it's a 50/50 shot based on your personal preferences. Once I-87 is built, if you like the current routing with the high-traffic I-95 overlap, a 60 mph arterial with urban segments & traffic signals, and are mileage strict, keep taking it, no one is stopping you. If you'd prefer an interstate highway, no traffic signals, less traffic, a 70 mph speed limit, and are willing to drive 15-20 additional miles but similar travel times to get that, take I-87, no one is stopping you.

I think the debate on which route is more preferred by people is silly. It's whatever each individual person driving between the endpoints has preference to.

[Beltway]

I'd agree with the fact it is redundant over US-58 if US-58 was a freeway, but it's not

I-95 -is- a freeway, and with a 70 mph speed limit.

The extra mileage would be overcome by a higher speed limit, 70 mph, so you're not going to have this 15-20 minute gap that opposers to the road claim, it's going to be closer to a 2-4 minute gap

B A L O N E Y

and you know it. 

Have you ever seen the movie The Final Countdown?  What is the central theme?