Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[wdcrft63]

TV stations in Raleigh are having a hard time deciding what to call the freeway heading east; they are beginning to call it I-87 in some stories, but they still call it I-495 or US 64 in others.

[LM117]

TV stations in Raleigh are having a hard time deciding what to call the freeway heading east; they are beginning to call it I-87 in some stories, but they still call it I-495 or US 64 in others.

Sounds about right. They're also the same stations that claimed, 2 months ago, that Apple HQ was "imminent"  but I digress...

That said, given that I-495 signs are still up with an I-87 trailblazer here and there, it's not hard to understand why Joe six-pack would get confused. Anybody have any idea when NCDOT plans to change all of the signs?

[bob7374]

TV stations in Raleigh are having a hard time deciding what to call the freeway heading east; they are beginning to call it I-87 in some stories, but they still call it I-495 or US 64 in others.

Sounds about right. They're also the same stations that claimed, 2 months ago, that Apple HQ was "imminent"  but I digress...

That said, given that I-495 signs are still up with an I-87 trailblazer here and there, it's not hard to understand why Joe six-pack would get confused. Anybody have any idea when NCDOT plans to change all of the signs?

Hopefully, soon. The sign plans have been around for nearly a year. Here's a reminder of what the signs, hopefully, soon will look like (at the I-440 interchange):

[jcarte29]

I just now noticed they plan to change the exit tabs as well. Interesting!

[LM117]

I just now noticed they plan to change the exit tabs as well. Interesting!

At least they planning to do it right this time and not half-ass it like they did with the I-795/US-264 overlap in Wilson. I-795 is almost 11 years old and the overlap STILL uses US-264's exit numbers and mileposts. That doesn't include their stupid decision to use Kenly as a control city for I-795 at 795/264 split instead of Wilmington.

[sparker]

I just now noticed they plan to change the exit tabs as well. Interesting!

At least they planning to do it right this time and not half-ass it like they did with the I-795/US-264 overlap in Wilson. I-795 is almost 11 years old and the overlap STILL uses US-264's exit numbers and mileposts. That doesn't include their stupid decision to use Kenly as a control city for I-795 at 795/264 split instead of Wilmington.

Actually, when and if I-587 is signed, those mileposts and exit numbers will be correct; the slow pace of replacing them for I-795 might have been prescient on NCDOT's part.  As far as control cities are concerned, the Kenly choice (a definite mistake) doesn't address anything along I-795 or predecessor US 117 -- but a Wilmington reference might have been premature absent a direct connector to I-40; once that's done, it'll be more than appropriate.  Now -- why Goldsboro wasn't part of the mix is a mystery; for the original I-795 segment, it would be the most logical control.  I'm guessing the controls for the combined 587 & 795, at least from both I-587 EB and I-95 SB, will ultimately be both Greenville and Wilmington.

[Mr. ENC]

You know idk why they didn't just reroute 87 over 440 and end it at I-40 by near Cary, would make was more sense and would actaully push for an I-87 extension towards the Southern Pines area.

[sparker]

You know idk why they didn't just reroute 87 over 440 and end it at I-40 by near Cary, would make was more sense and would actaully push for an I-87 extension towards the Southern Pines area.

IIRC, I-87 is signed -- or intended to be signed -- over I-440 from the US 64/264 interchange down to the eastern I-40 interchange.  Extending it down US 1 via Southern Pines to the Rockingham area is simply speculation at this time; previous efforts to place an Interstate on this particular corridor have failed. 

[LM117]

One good thing about an I-87 extension to I-73/74 in Rockingham is that I-87 would become more of an N/S interstate. I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to consider such an extension sometime in the far future.

[The Ghostbuster]

I'd extend Interstate 87 down the US 1 corridor. But I'm getting into fictional territory here.

[wdcrft63]

One good thing about an I-87 extension to I-73/74 in Rockingham is that I-87 would become more of an N/S interstate. I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to consider such an extension sometime in the far future.

Not impossible, but there's no suggestion of this currently.

[sparker]

One good thing about an I-87 extension to I-73/74 in Rockingham is that I-87 would become more of an N/S interstate. I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to consider such an extension sometime in the far future.

Not impossible, but there's no suggestion of this currently.

Between the current spate of recently-minted Interstates, the ongoing 73/74 situation, and the upgrades to US 74 on both sides of Charlotte (which would be the next likely addition to the "family"), NCDOT's got quite a bit on its plate at present; I'd give it until most of the current projects are well under way before they take a serious look at anything else (of course, if local "pork politics" intervene, anything can happen!). 

[Gnutella]

Damn, does this mean that all the really high exit numbers on U.S. 64 will be gone soon? I saw an Exit 514, and took Exit 496 to get to Greenville. That'd be lame to see them go.

[LM117]

Damn, does this mean that all the really high exit numbers on U.S. 64 will be gone soon? I saw an Exit 514, and took Exit 496 to get to Greenville. That'd be lame to see them go.

Only between I-440 and the Rolesville Road exit east of Knightdale. All the other exit numbers from that point towards Williamston will remain for quite some time.

[Mapmikey]

Damn, does this mean that all the really high exit numbers on U.S. 64 will be gone soon? I saw an Exit 514, and took Exit 496 to get to Greenville. That'd be lame to see them go.

Only between I-440 and the Rolesville Road exit east of Knightdale. All the other exit numbers from that point towards Williamston will remain for quite some time.

US 64 has exit numbers all the way out to Columbia with the highest being 562.  There will be numerous 5xx exit numbers on US 64 no matter what eventually happens with I-87.

[sprjus4]

Another project proposed for Interstate 87 - "R-5869"

This project would upgrade 4 miles of US 17 to interstate standards from Wiggins Road, along the Hertford bypass, ending at US 17 Business.

Estimated to cost $200 million total, only part of it is currently funded.

An interchange at New Hope Rd, an interchange at Harvey Point Rd, and a flyover at Wynne Fork Road are funded for $60.6 million.

The rest of the 4 miles are programmed for detailed environmental study to determine the impacts of constructing any additional interchanges and access roads. The unfunded project would bring the rest of it up to interstate standards for $139.5 million.

I believe an interchange at US 17 Business on the southern end, an interchange at Wiggins Road, and frontage roads is all that's needed. I do not understand why is it projected to cost $139.5 million, but who knows these days. Any bridge replacement should not be included, as it was determined the existing bridges can be maintained.

--------

Hopefully by 2030, there will be a full interstate corridor between Virginia and Elizabeth City (possibly fully signed as I-87) and an interstate-grade bypass of Hertford. Beyond 2030, work should focus on upgrading highway between Hertford and Edenton, and constructing three new 6-8 mile freeways to link the rest together. As for existing freeways, along with all of US 64, shoulders should be widened during planned resurfacing, and should not be prioritized over any new roads/upgrades.

As for Virginia, Chesapeake should try to acquire funding to construct 4 interchanges along US 17, and construct access roads at a few locations. Then polish the corridor up to full standards and request designation for I-87. The roadway should be able to accommodate a 65-70 MPH speed limit when upgraded, and Dominion Boulevard can be 55-60 MPH.

[The Ghostbuster]

Will NCDOT wait until all future upgrades of the corridor are completed before changing the exit numbers? I know we can't predict the future, but that seems to be the case with Interstate 540-turned-Interstate 49 in Northwestern Arkansas.

[sprjus4]

Will NCDOT wait until all future upgrades of the corridor are completed before changing the exit numbers? I know we can't predict the future, but that seems to be the case with Interstate 540-turned-Interstate 49 in Northwestern Arkansas.

I don't know, but it sure would be nice if they would get someone out there to swap all the I-495 shields for I-87 shields, and to add more going east to US 64 Business. I mean, it's been a year now, and Interstate 495 doesn't even exist.

In my opinion, if any part gets signed as I-87, it should come with it's full features, including new exit numbers.

[bob7374]

Will NCDOT wait until all future upgrades of the corridor are completed before changing the exit numbers? I know we can't predict the future, but that seems to be the case with Interstate 540-turned-Interstate 49 in Northwestern Arkansas.

I agree, with the condition that the exit numbers are continuous. If a section of US 64 east of I-95 gets completed before a section between the Knightdale Bypass (due to have its numbers changed whenever the I-87 signs are put up) and I-95, I don't think they'll want numbers to change back to US 64 mileposts then back to I-87's. Of course, they could change the western sections numbers at the same time before the section is upgraded so they would be continuous, but that may make too much sense for NCDOT.

I don't know, but it sure would be nice if they would get someone out there to swap all the I-495 shields for I-87 shields, and to add more going east to US 64 Business. I mean, it's been a year now, and Interstate 495 doesn't even exist.

In my opinion, if any part gets signed as I-87, it should come with it's full features, including new exit numbers.

[sprjus4]

Sort of unrelated to I-87, but relates to US 17. Between Williamston and Washington, they're currently planning an expansion of the two lane road to four lanes. This sort of counteracts the whole initiative to make US 17 a freeway throughout the entire state, as it would make more sense to simply build a freeway on new location. However, I noticed that the right of way for the proposed widening would capture between 250 - 300 feet, way more than enough for 4 lanes. Doing this however, leaves a good 60-80 feet on each side of clear land. It appears to me that the move was done intentionally to accommodate the construction of future frontage roads with the end goal of having a full controlled access facility. Smart planning on their part, IMHO. It takes somewhat unnecessary land now, however later on down the road, no more R/W would be needed, except for interchange locations. It would be interesting to see how they handle other existing 4 lane sections if a freeway upgrade does ever occur.

I must admit if that happened, I think a huge opportunity would be presented with a new major north-south interstate-grade route through eastern North Carolina. And I-87 is just one large step to that. Other projects on US 17 in NC such as the Maysville / Pollocksville Bypasses, the Hampstead Bypass, the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension, and other limited-access at-grade expressways on the route are also major steps. Now, the rest of the non-limited-access segments either need to be bypassed or upgraded one by one.

Here are the plans for the US 17 Williamston to Washington expansion, where you can clearly see the large amounts of R/W being captured -
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll3.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll4.pdf

[sparker]

Sort of unrelated to I-87, but relates to US 17. Between Williamston and Washington, they're currently planning an expansion of the two lane road to four lanes. This sort of counteracts the whole initiative to make US 17 a freeway throughout the entire state, as it would make more sense to simply build a freeway on new location. However, I noticed that the right of way for the proposed widening would capture between 250 - 300 feet, way more than enough for 4 lanes. Doing this however, leaves a good 60-80 feet on each side of clear land. It appears to me that the move was done intentionally to accommodate the construction of future frontage roads with the end goal of having a full controlled access facility. Smart planning on their part, IMHO. It takes somewhat unnecessary land now, however later on down the road, no more R/W would be needed, except for interchange locations. It would be interesting to see how they handle other existing 4 lane sections if a freeway upgrade does ever occur.

I must admit if that happened, I think a huge opportunity would be presented with a new major north-south interstate-grade route through eastern North Carolina. And I-87 is just one large step to that. Other projects on US 17 in NC such as the Maysville / Pollocksville Bypasses, the Hampstead Bypass, the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension, and other limited-access at-grade expressways on the route are also major steps. Now, the rest of the non-limited-access segments either need to be bypassed or upgraded one by one.

Here are the plans for the US 17 Williamston to Washington expansion, where you can clearly see the large amounts of R/W being captured -
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll3.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll4.pdf

Wow -- look at all the J-turns.  But it does look like this is an "economy" solution to the safety/capacity issues endemic to US 17 in that area -- but it also certainly looks like the first step in an "inverse" to the Texas-style developmental idiom whereby the frontage roads are constructed first as a conventional 4-lane highway with a median wide enough to accommodate at least 4 additional through lanes with connecting slip ramps.  Here, the center lanes are constructed but with enough side ROW for future frontage roads -- and with the J-turns to accommodate local movements.  A facility such as this should suffice until full limited-access is warranted; at least it is more readily upgradable than the "superstreet" concept planned elsewhere in NC.

[wdcrft63]

Sort of unrelated to I-87, but relates to US 17. Between Williamston and Washington, they're currently planning an expansion of the two lane road to four lanes. This sort of counteracts the whole initiative to make US 17 a freeway throughout the entire state, as it would make more sense to simply build a freeway on new location. However, I noticed that the right of way for the proposed widening would capture between 250 - 300 feet, way more than enough for 4 lanes. Doing this however, leaves a good 60-80 feet on each side of clear land. It appears to me that the move was done intentionally to accommodate the construction of future frontage roads with the end goal of having a full controlled access facility. Smart planning on their part, IMHO. It takes somewhat unnecessary land now, however later on down the road, no more R/W would be needed, except for interchange locations. It would be interesting to see how they handle other existing 4 lane sections if a freeway upgrade does ever occur.

I must admit if that happened, I think a huge opportunity would be presented with a new major north-south interstate-grade route through eastern North Carolina. And I-87 is just one large step to that. Other projects on US 17 in NC such as the Maysville / Pollocksville Bypasses, the Hampstead Bypass, the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension, and other limited-access at-grade expressways on the route are also major steps. Now, the rest of the non-limited-access segments either need to be bypassed or upgraded one by one.

Here are the plans for the US 17 Williamston to Washington expansion, where you can clearly see the large amounts of R/W being captured -
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll3.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll4.pdf

Wow -- look at all the J-turns.  But it does look like this is an "economy" solution to the safety/capacity issues endemic to US 17 in that area -- but it also certainly looks like the first step in an "inverse" to the Texas-style developmental idiom whereby the frontage roads are constructed first as a conventional 4-lane highway with a median wide enough to accommodate at least 4 additional through lanes with connecting slip ramps.  Here, the center lanes are constructed but with enough side ROW for future frontage roads -- and with the J-turns to accommodate local movements.  A facility such as this should suffice until full limited-access is warranted; at least it is more readily upgradable than the "superstreet" concept planned elsewhere in NC.

This appears to be the standard model for new 4-lane highways in rural areas. Yes, it could support a future upgrade to a freeway, but I don't hear anyone talking about that at present.

[sprjus4]

Sort of unrelated to I-87, but relates to US 17. Between Williamston and Washington, they're currently planning an expansion of the two lane road to four lanes. This sort of counteracts the whole initiative to make US 17 a freeway throughout the entire state, as it would make more sense to simply build a freeway on new location. However, I noticed that the right of way for the proposed widening would capture between 250 - 300 feet, way more than enough for 4 lanes. Doing this however, leaves a good 60-80 feet on each side of clear land. It appears to me that the move was done intentionally to accommodate the construction of future frontage roads with the end goal of having a full controlled access facility. Smart planning on their part, IMHO. It takes somewhat unnecessary land now, however later on down the road, no more R/W would be needed, except for interchange locations. It would be interesting to see how they handle other existing 4 lane sections if a freeway upgrade does ever occur.

I must admit if that happened, I think a huge opportunity would be presented with a new major north-south interstate-grade route through eastern North Carolina. And I-87 is just one large step to that. Other projects on US 17 in NC such as the Maysville / Pollocksville Bypasses, the Hampstead Bypass, the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension, and other limited-access at-grade expressways on the route are also major steps. Now, the rest of the non-limited-access segments either need to be bypassed or upgraded one by one.

Here are the plans for the US 17 Williamston to Washington expansion, where you can clearly see the large amounts of R/W being captured -
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll3.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-2511_Rdy_Color_Roll4.pdf

Wow -- look at all the J-turns.  But it does look like this is an "economy" solution to the safety/capacity issues endemic to US 17 in that area -- but it also certainly looks like the first step in an "inverse" to the Texas-style developmental idiom whereby the frontage roads are constructed first as a conventional 4-lane highway with a median wide enough to accommodate at least 4 additional through lanes with connecting slip ramps.  Here, the center lanes are constructed but with enough side ROW for future frontage roads -- and with the J-turns to accommodate local movements.  A facility such as this should suffice until full limited-access is warranted; at least it is more readily upgradable than the "superstreet" concept planned elsewhere in NC.

This appears to be the standard model for new 4-lane highways in rural areas. Yes, it could support a future upgrade to a freeway, but I don't hear anyone talking about that at present.

It is true, I've noticed a lot of the newer widenings of highways in North Carolina to include right of ways between 230 - 250 feet. It is a smart move though, as in the future if it warrants, frontage roads could be built within or slightly out of existing R/W. The US 158 widening between Belcross and NC 168 proposed will only have a 200 foot R/W. The reason US 17 stuck out to me is because it has a R/W closer to 250-300 feet, as opposed to 230-250 feet as other plans for other roads I've seen. It's not much a difference, though if frontage roads are built, there's slightly more setback, and it would all be in existing R/W.

UPDATE: I've done some reading within the Environmental Assessment for this project, and apparently the proposed right-of-way for US 17 is between 220-250 feet (in different locations), however, that does not include easements which do add slightly more room, plus existing R/W in some locations. Either way, the additional room does accommodate future expansion nonetheless. Slightly older projects from the 90s and 2000s appeared more to focus on capturing 150 feet to strictly include the widened portion. This method allows for future frontage roads to be constructed in or slightly out of existing R/W.

It's funny, there was a time where North Carolina choose to build widenings and upgrades to 2 lane roads as new location freeways. Just look at U.S. 64 between Tarboro and Williamston, U.S. 52 between Lexington and Winston-Salem, U.S. 220 (now I-73) in portions between Greensboro and Rockingham, and others. I still think it would've made most sense, but cost could've determined it. At least it will have a R/W capable of future upgrades, whenever it may warrant.

At least this is not the mess U.S. Route 58 was and still currently is between Hillsville and South Hill in Virginia. Billions and billions of dollars were & still are being poured into 4 lane widenings of the roadway, in hopes it would become more attractive for cross-state motorists as opposed to I-64 to I-81. The result - most thru traffic still mainly uses the I-64 to I-81 route because it is faster. When the whole mess started in the 80s and 90s, money could've been used construct the whole thing on new location as a full freeway. If it was done properly, work could've been focused in creating an interstate-grade route between Norfolk and Hillsville, which would've become a major route for east-west motorists to connect to I-81 South. It would've shaved off 30-40 minutes w/ a 70 MPH speed limit using an interstate-style US 58, and would've diverted most traffic off I-64 to I-81. Instead, there's 4 lane roads that have low traffic volumes and 55 MPH speed limits that could easily handle 65 MPH. If 65 MPH was a thing, even that would bring more traffic. I'm not saying the widenings were not necessary, I agree that the widened roads & bypasses are a lot safer now, however there was a huge opportunity which was missed, and the money that was & is still being spent for the road was improperly used IMHO.

[Beltway]

At least this is not the mess U.S. Route 58 was and still currently is between Hillsville and South Hill in Virginia. Billions and billions of dollars were & still are being poured into 4 lane widenings of the roadway, in hopes it would become more attractive for cross-state motorists as opposed to I-64 to I-81. The result - most thru traffic still mainly uses the I-64 to I-81 route because it is faster. When the whole mess started in the 80s and 90s, money could've been used construct the whole thing on new location as a full freeway.

They studied a "US-58 Superhighway" built to full freeway standards, but decided that it would be far too expensive, and that the future traffic projections didn't come anywhere close to needing that.  Total program costs since the U.S. Route 58 Corridor Development Program was begun in 1989 I believe have not yet passed $600 million. 

It never was intended for cross-state traffic in lieu of I-64 and I-81, it was developed along the concept of the other rural arterial highways that supplement the Interstate system, mainly in order to provide modern 4-lane highway service to the towns and cities and markets along the route.

[sprjus4]

At least this is not the mess U.S. Route 58 was and still currently is between Hillsville and South Hill in Virginia. Billions and billions of dollars were & still are being poured into 4 lane widenings of the roadway, in hopes it would become more attractive for cross-state motorists as opposed to I-64 to I-81. The result - most thru traffic still mainly uses the I-64 to I-81 route because it is faster. When the whole mess started in the 80s and 90s, money could've been used construct the whole thing on new location as a full freeway.

They studied a "US-58 Superhighway" built to full freeway standards, but decided that it would be far too expensive, and that the future traffic projections didn't come anywhere close to needing that.  Total program costs since the U.S. Route 58 Corridor Development Program was begun in 1989 I believe have not yet passed $600 million. 

It never was intended for cross-state traffic in lieu of I-64 and I-81, it was developed along the concept of the other rural arterial highways that supplement the Interstate system, mainly in order to provide modern 4-lane highway service to the towns and cities and markets along the route.

As of a document from April 2016 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Route_58_with_Cover_Page.pdf), $1.4 billion was spent on U.S. Route 58 between 1989 - 2016, and another $500 million for projects proposed between FY 2017 - 2022. Like I stated before, I do agree with the need for safety improvements, but what I do disagree with is the money put into the project, close to $2 billion. For a route with such low traffic volumes, it is almost a waste. There's other important projects in the state that are fighting for that type of money, and cannot get it due to insufficient funding. Other roads w/ higher traffic volumes were built as toll roads in Richmond (VA 895), Hampton Roads (VA 168, US 17, Midtown Tunnel) that this money could've been used on.

There is a way the state can make these arterial routes more attractive however - higher speed limits. Having speeds posted as low as 55 MPH on these relatively limited-access routes drastically increases travel time unnecessarily so. Many states have adopted speed limits of 65 MPH (or higher going west) on arterial roads, West Virginia a nearby example. If interstate speeds like 65 MPH were posted on arterial highways without traffic signals, they could almost function as primary interstates, travel times would be reduced, and no large scale interstate projects would be needed. Most of the U.S. Route 58 corridor could handle these speeds, along with other highways in the state (US 29, US 17, US 460, etc) This, in turn, would attract more traffic to these routes, relieving the interstates of some congestion as new, interstate-speed routes opened up, and not costing the state much money. Many routes in the western states are like this, 70-75 MPH speed limits that are non-limited-access 4 lane highways, with interchanges and intersections, and they serve as major highways that relieve congestion on interstates. Obviously, here that would be 65 MPH, but it would still work. But VDOT complains 65 MPH is unsafe, and all highways must be 55MPH with a few 60MPH. Somehow states like West Virginia can easily handle 65 MPH on certain routes safely, but we can't.