Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[sprjus4]

Only if VDOT undertakes safety and other line of sight improvements when/if that segment gets upgraded to Interstate.  The existing 70 MPH Interstates were not automatically increased when the General Assembly passed the law allowing 70.  They only increased to 70 when VDOT completed safety improvements along those segments.  VDOT has minimum standards that a road must meet before they'll sign it with a higher limit.

Of course, there would be studies that would be required, and it would have to be determined safe. But my point is that it is possible, with those evaluations & studies of course.

I wouldn't imagine safety improvements would be required, with the exception of interchanges obviously, but the majority of the roadway, where there's not open intersections, already designed to that standard of a rural interstate highway.

Doing a brief evaluation myself, I-295 north of Hopewell has some curves that have a smaller radius than those on US 17, and still has a 70 MPH speed limit. The curvature on US 17 shouldn't be an issue holding back a speed limit raise, as I've mentioned in the past, they are designed well enough to handle higher speeds than 55 MPH or 60 MPH.

Because it is not a "few" acres, it looks like at least 500 acres, with 1/3 of that currently utilized for farming and presumably suitable land for houses.  There are plenty of single family homes on less than one acre right in that vicinity.  Many more could be built in the future.  The development-oriented city would want that.

These roads (Glencoe and Douglas) cross and access US-17 today.  Can't sever them and render areas inaccessible.

If the city had kept old US-17 open to motor vehicle traffic then it might be possible.  But they didn't.

Actually I think it was "overkill" by the city for turning the old highway over to bicycle and pedestrian use only.  It could be a lightly traveled secondary road, giving permanent access to those lands, and still be a pleasant experience for bicycles and pedestrians.

I see on the City of Chesapeake 2035 Land Use Plan, that most of that area west of US-17 is classified for Recreation.  That could change in the future to allow increases in development.

I see on the City of Chesapeake 2050 Master Transportation Plan that none of US-17 George Washington Highway has any improvements proposed, except for connecting to a relocated airport access road for Chesapeake Regional Airport, so that would be another interchange required if ever US-17 was upgraded to a freeway.

Using the City of Chesapeake's property map (http://gisweb.cityofchesapeake.net/quicksearch/index.html), I compiled some interesting information. The areas you see in green, which is about 1,530 acres, is currently owned by either the City of Chesapeake, or conservation groups. The purple area, about 300 acres, is currently planned to be purchased by the city and converted into recreational use. The remaining red area, 87 acres, would loose full access and have to be purchased by VDOT or the city. All other farm tracts and land on the west side would have full access via interchanges at Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, and George Washington Hwy. Douglas Rd is fully surrounded by conserved land, so this could easily be closed without issue. It seems the end goal is to not construct an new major developments on the west side, and if proposed, the city would reject them being rezoned to residential. The west side of US 17 is a very sensitive area, and there's a reason most of the land is conserved + future recreational use.



The Transportation Plan was last updated in 2014, before I-87. There's plans to update it in the next year or to, and there's been lots of mention about putting an upgraded US 17 into the plan.

As for the Airport Access Road, that proposal was the intention of the airport growing, and development being located on this giant farm tract. If that occurred, the city could construct interchange access, but it wouldn't be built under the I-87 upgrade. That's a completely different project, and VDOT would not pay for it.

^ Upon further review, every acre of farmland west of 17 would be accessible from the logical interchange locations at Ballahack, Cornland, and BUSINESS 17.  For the three fields near Glencoe and the house at the end of Glencoe, one would only need to reopen the old roadway between the canal parking lot and Glencoe.  There's absolutely no need for an overpass at Glencoe.  Even if the roadway isn't reopened on that stretch, buying out the house and providing a farm road to the northern field would be cheaper than an overpass.

The one house at the west end of Douglas could be bought out...there's nothing else west of 17 along Douglas, and east of 17 Douglas has access to Cornland via two other roads.

Everything further north is accessible from BUSINESS 17 or old Cedar Rd.

If the city wants to develop that area into residential, let THEM pay for the overpasses...or get them as proffers from the developers.  Otherwise, as things exist now, there is no need for additional overpasses between Ballahack and BUSINESS 17.

**NOTE** - I have not analyzed north of BUSINESS 17 or near the state line yet.  The latter (from the state line to the first curve) is technically not limited-access because of the pre-existing field accesses and not being on new alignment...Scott is correct upthread on this.

See my comments above, not every acre would be accessible, but most of those acres being inaccessible are currently owned by conservation groups or the City of Chesapeake. The rest, 87 acres, could be purchased by the city or VDOT.

I'm pretty sure the house at the west end of Douglas Rd is abandoned anyways.

There's a farm tract with access directly to US 17 north of Business 17, however there's also access to Old Cedar Road, so the US 17 entrance could be closed without issue.

All of US 17 from North Carolina to I-64 has full limited-access fences and right of way, with a few breaks in the fence for private access where required. Besides those breaks, the rest is fully limited-access. There's no continuous stretch of non-limited-access without fencing & proper right of way, only the few breaks.

There is no Business 17 there, that is permanently closed to motor vehicles.

There isn't...?

A "farm road"?  How about a mile of paved service road north of Glencoe Road, and a mile of paved service road south of Glencoe Road, if new homes are to be built in those areas.

Again, if the city wants something above and beyond servicing the existing situation, they can fund it themselves or get a future developer to proffer it.  Until then, there is no need for a paved road.

And if the city and residents demand that VDOT provide an overpass rather than sever Glencoe Road?

Severance would be a hard sell to the local residents, and their demands for retention of access would be an easy sell to VDOT.

I doubt the residents would demand an overpass...because they'd still have to backtrack down to Ballahack Rd to access 17.  They'd be more likely to demand ramps at Glencoe than demand an overpass, but such an interchange would be a considerable cost for a benefit limited to the two dozen or so homes on Glencoe and Belle Haven.

If new homes are to be built in those areas, the new developments would have to attach to Glencoe St or Ballahack Rd either way today. US 17 has full limited-access in this stretch, and would not permit access. So, no new service roads would have to be built, where existing roads already service.

The severing of Glencoe St (which leads nowhere, and private access can be via the trail which is already a public roadway about half the length / bought out) would not have opposition, and closing Douglas Rd, which again is surrounded by conserved land and nothing out there would again have no opposition. If there was opposition, it would be over loosing access to US 17, not over not having an overpass to nowhere. In that regard, VDOT or Chesapeake would not build an interchange when another one about 1 mile away with easy access would serve just as well.

Interstate highways work this way - there's not an interchange at every single crossroad, and where there's not, there's generally alternate routes to reach an interchange. In this case there would be.

The canal path is already technically open to any vehicle for the 2 miles south of Ballahack (with requirement to give way to trail users), so having a tiny amount open around the Douglas Rd area doesn't seem insurmountable.

As for cutting off future development west of US 17, isn't this the precise purpose of Frontage Roads?  An interchange at Ballahack with a frontage road along the west side of 17 whenever development actually comes seems reasonable.

The one house at the end of Douglas already has an improvised driveway to Douglas which is needed because there is a gate at the end of Douglas (albeit it was open when GMSV wandered by).

There's about 170 ft between US 17 and the trail between Ballahack Rd and Glencoe St. I find it hard to believe there would ever be a development proposal for this area.

Either way - the city has the final say for any developments down here. All the land is zoned agricultural and rural, and would have to get approved for rezoning, and the location of the properties right along the Dismal Swamp, would likely not get approved. There's a reason this is all zoned recreational, and any development (though not much) is proposed on the -east- side.

[Beltway]

Doing a brief evaluation myself, I-295 north of Hopewell has some curves that have a smaller radius than those on US 17, and still has a 70 MPH speed limit. The curvature on US 17 shouldn't be an issue holding back a speed limit raise, as I've mentioned in the past, they are designed well enough to handle higher speeds than 55 MPH or 60 MPH.

I worked on the design of that particular I-295 project in the early 1980s.  Tell me, what are the curve radii on each curve on US-17?  If you know so much, tell me, and then I will tell you if they meet 70 mph standards.  Those curves on I-295 near the Appomattox River also have the maximum allowable superelevation.

Do you know what superelevation is without googling it?  Do you know how it relates to design speed?

The Transportation Plan was last updated in 2014, before I-87.

In November 2012, NCDOT requested the addition of the HPC 13 corridor to the Interstate highway system through administrative options with the FHWA as I-44.  VI-87 was approved by NCDOT in 2015.

There's plans to update it in the next year or to, and there's been lots of mention about putting an upgraded US 17 into the plan.

By N.C. business advocates.

The copy of the 2050 Master Transportation Plan for the City of Chesapeake that I found was published November 2016 (which is -after- 2015).  It is a 2050 plan and there were no improvements listed on US-17 George Washington Highway, except the airport road intersection.

No such US-17 upgrades are programmed with VDOT or HRTPO or HRTAC as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.

Give it up.  There is no official interest in Virginia for VI-87.

As for the Airport Access Road, that proposal was the intention of the airport growing, and development being located on this giant farm tract. If that occurred, the city could construct interchange access, but it wouldn't be built under the I-87 upgrade. That's a completely different project, and VDOT would not pay for it.

It is an expense related to upgrading US-17 to freeway standards, because it would be an at-grade intersection otherwise.  True whether the city pays for it or whether VDOT pays for it, and there is no reason why the city might not request VDOT to build it.

So these would be required:
Ballahack Road (interchange)
Glencoe Street (overpass)
Douglas Road (overpass)
Cornland Road (interchange)
Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport (interchange)
Business US-17 (interchange)
Eaglet Parkway (if not an interchange at least an overpass)
Grassfield Parkway (interchange)

Here is another big expense for converting US-17 to an Interstate highway --

The I-464/I-64 interchange.  The current interchange met Interstate standards at least for when I-64 and I-464 was built, but the mile of US-17 (old VA-104 as well as the 2016 freeway upgrade) immediately to the south does not.  Signing a continuous Interstate highway thru there would be far below Interstate standards.  Whether I-464 would remain and VI-87 would be signed up to I-64, or whether the whole thing would be VI-87, it would be a continuous Interstate highway between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464, and the horizontal curves and lane configurations and left-hand ramp terminals in the interchange area just south of I-64 would be far below Interstate standards, it would be an abomination to call that scheme an Interstate highway.

There would be some very expensive construction needed, with major bridgework, to provide an adequate and modern Interstate highway segment here, and it could cost north of $200 million, maybe a lot more.  Another tab to be charged to the VI-87 proposal, something that can be left as is with US-17 remaining as a primary highway.

[sprjus4]

I worked on the design of that particular I-295 project in the early 1980s.  Tell me, what are the curve radii on each curve on US-17?  If you know so much, tell me, and then I will tell you if they meet 70 mph standards.

North of the Appomattox River, one curve has a radii of around 2,300 ft, posted at 70 MPH.

Here's the ones on US 17 rounded, heading north to south -
4,100 ft, 7,500 ft, 2,500 ft, 2,600 ft, 4,000 ft, 2,500 ft, 3,800 ft, 2,500 ft, 2,900 ft, 3,100 ft, 5,000 ft, 2,800 ft.

The smallest curve radii on US 17 is at 2,500 ft, and none of the curves have the amount of superelevation that I-295 does.

So, by I-295's standards, US 17 would be eligible for 70 MPH. It's funny, you've mentioned the in the past substandard freeways on US 58 could hold 70 MPH with advisory speeds around sharp curves. Now you say the radii must meet 70 MPH standards in order to be posted on US 17, which they do nonetheless.

In November 2012, NCDOT requested the addition of the corridor to the Interstate highway system through administrative options with the FHWA as I-44.  VI-87 was approved by NCDOT in 2015.

By business advocates.

The copy of the 2050 Master Transportation for the City of Chesapeake that I found was published November 2016 (which is -after- 2015).  It is a 2050 plan and there were no improvements listed on US-17 George Washington Highway.

No such US-17 upgrades are programmed with VDOT or HRTPO or HRTAC as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.

Give it up.  There is no official interest in Virginia for VI-87.

Interstate 87 got approved in May 2016 by AASHTO. The city plan was fully revised in 2014, the updated November 2016 plan was to include local road improvements suggested from the Dominion Blvd Corridor Study, such as Cedar Road extension, etc. which was started before I-87, and did not include analysis on that, though it did cite a proposed US 17 interstate several times. The Nov. 2016 update did not include the rest of the roadways throughout the city. Either way, the city's interest on I-87 has come up over the past couple of years, with Dominion Blvd growth, and the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park.

The city requested VDOT and HRTPO to study I-87 back in December 2017, clearly citing interest in the project. They could have not requested any study on it.

The "Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Comprehensive Plan Strategies" concept for developing the future comprehensive plan which includes transportation, etc. published back in August 2018 mentioned the I-87 proposal several times.
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/planning/2035compplan/MACCPS+Final+Report.pdf

"Extension of the Dismal Swamp Canal Trail to North Carolina line should be pursued, perhaps in a partnership with the state, tied to creation of I-87."

"A wildlife crossing should be constructed in the vicinity of the Frank Williams Farm, especially if Route 17 is upgraded to I-87."

"Ms. Moore asked who is in charge of Light Rail Transit/Bus Rapid Transit implementation as identified in the study, as well as re-designating Dominion Boulevard/Route 17 as I-87."

"Ms. Barlow suggested that the state could help fund [trail extension to NC], especially if they want to see Route 17 upgraded to interstate status. She also mentioned the need to construct a wildlife crossing in the vicinity of the Frank Williams Farm Tract if the interstate is developed."

"Ms. Cox felt that the Dominion Boulevard Corridor Study seems like a positive initiative if it brings new revenues to the City. The proposed Interstate 87 in the vicinity could be a good fix for the region being essentially a cul-de-sac in the state. She agrees with Ms. Barlow that growth in rural Chesapeake needs to be approached “gracefully.” "

"Environmental concerns and economic opportunities in the corridor will need to be carefully balanced, especially if the roadway becomes I-87."

City officials in regard to the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park in Southern Chesapeake also have cited in past discussions about how I-87 will run right along the megasite one day. Again, clearly there's interest.

The Port of Virginia wants the interstate concept to I-95 South, and has supported I-87. That's why VDOT is evaluating a southern I-95 interstate connection, and I-87 was listed as an option.

So these would be required:
Ballahack Road (interchange)
Glencoe Street (ovepass)
Douglas Road (overpass)
Cornland Road (interchange)
Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport (interchange)
Business US-17 (interchange)
Eaglet Parkway (if not an interchange at least an overpass)
Grassfield Parkway (interchange)

Clearly, you have ignored the entire last post I made.

• Ballahack Rd - Yes, interchange
• Glencoe St - This access of land has access via the trail, which is already a public roadway for that stretch. North of Glencoe St, that land is conservation. It will continue to operate as such, and with the 1 house on the other side, the trail / existing public roadway will adequately operate, and would not require an overpass.
• Douglas Rd - The entire stretch of Douglas Rd on the west side of US 17 runs between protected and conserved land, as I mentioned in my previous post. Who would this overpass serve?
• Cornland Rd - Yes, interchange
• Airport Access Rd - Yes, if the city were to ever construct it in the future. A direct I-87 upgrade would likely focus on existing roadways, not future ones. Future ones could be added later via future interchanges. There's currently no public road at this location.
• Business US-17 - Yes, interchange
• Eaglet Pkwy - You still have yet to explain a logical reason why an interchange or overpass would be required here. The Business 17 interchange would be located 1/2 mile away, and provide access fully to properties near Eaglet Pkwy. It would a complete waste to construct an interchange here, or an overpass.
• Grassfield Pkwy - I've already mentioned, existing roads adequately serve this development. The expensive cost & complex design would not warrant construction here. You can replace this with Scenic Pkwy, which would require one.

Here is another big expense for converting US-17 to an Interstate highway --

The I-464/I-64 interchange.  The current interchange met Interstate standards at least for when I-64 and I-464 was built, but the mile of US-17 immediately to the south does not.  Signing a continuous Interstate highway thru there would be far below Interstate standards.  Whether I-464 would remain and VI-87 would be signed up to I-64, or whether the whole thing would be VI-87, it would be a continuous Interstate highway between US-17 Dominion Blvd. and I-464, and the horizontal curves and lane configurations and left-hand ramp terminals in the interchange area just south of I-64 would be far below Interstate standards. 

There would be some very expensive construction needed, with major bridgework, to provide an adequate and modern Interstate highway segment here, and it could cost north of $200 million, maybe a lot more.  Another tab to be charged to the VI-87 proposal, something that can be left as is with US-17 remaining as a primary highway.

The existing interchange would meet interstate standards. The ramps have adequate width, full shoulders, and is limited-access fully to I-64. Left-hand exits aren't preferred, but there's nothing that says it's not permitted on the system. North Carolina signed I-73 through new construction & existing highways in Greensboro, and includes a single hand loop ramp for continuity, and a new construction left entrance north of Greensboro. AASHTO had no issues approving it for I-73 designation. But I suppose you'd say they get exemptions. There wouldn't be any issues here. This part of the interchange was built in 1999 with the Oak Grove Connector, and the US-17 part back in 2016, and meets full interstate highway standards.

Even if it actually was an issue, the I-87 designation can end just north of Great Bridge Blvd, where the mainline turn into the ramps. The ramps would fully connect it to I-464 / I-64, and the exit off I-64, I-464, and VA-168 can still read "I-87 South".

Just curious, what massive bridge construction and reconfigurations would be needed? If you could provide specific examples, that would be useful. Because as far as it is now, the interchange already meets interstate-highway standards, and any massive construction would be simply for additional capacity, and either way, no bridge would have to be replaced or widened.

The image below - the red represents I-87 designation, green represent full movement, interstate-standard ramps, and blue represents I-464.

[sprjus4]

Other than a couple curves that might have an advisory speed of 65, those 3 bypasses could conceivably be 70 mph.

^^^

[Roadsguy]

limited-access fully to I-64

Actually, there's no direct connection from I-64 "west" to US 17 south. What's even weirder is that this missing movement carries US 17, so it's signed on Great Bridge Blvd.

[sprjus4]

limited-access fully to I-64

Actually, there's no direct connection from I-64 "west" to US 17 south. What's even weirder is that this missing movement carries US 17, so it's signed on Great Bridge Blvd.

There's no direct connection between I-64 West to US 17 South because traffic counts do not warrant it. A driver following US 17 would continue on US 17 Business through Deep Creek, not take US 17 Mainline. The reason it was re-routed is so Dominion Blvd could be have a U.S. route and be eligible for federal funding (that failed, and we have the tolls today), and for trucks. Trucks are not permitted through Deep Creek, so for instance a truck coming from Bowers Hill bound to Elizabeth City or points south would have to go across the High Rise Bridge, take Great Bridge Blvd to U.S. 17 and take the Veterans Bridge back across.

Either way, Interstate 87 currently has full movement connections from I-64 Eastbound to I-87 Southbound / I-87 Northbound to I-64 Westbound, and technically could be signed immediately after AASHTO and FHWA approves it in Virginia because Dominion Blvd between I-64 and Grassfield Pkwy is built to full interstate highway standards.

[NE2]

The reason it was re-routed is so Dominion Blvd could be have a U.S. route and be eligible for federal funding

False. All that's required for federal funding is to be on the National Highway System, which it probably already was.

[froggie]

^ Indeed it was NHS.  But even if it wasn't, it'd be eligible for Federal STP (Surface Transportation Program) funds.  On top of that, EVERY public bridge in the nation is eligible for Federal bridge funding.  So it's not that it wasn't eligible for funding...it was because neither VDOT nor the city had the funding at the time to build it toll-free.

Dominion Blvd was a Virginia state highway (VA 104) before it became part of a rerouted US 17.  sprjus' mentioning of trucks is the primary reason why US 17 was rerouted onto Dominion Blvd...namely the drawbridge at Deep Creek (though it was also a hairy turn northbound at VA 165).  There have been on-again/off-again plans to replace that bridge for at least 20 years now.  The west end of the relocated VA 165 was built as such to accommodate what was then planned as a realigned replacement of the Deep Creek bridge north of the existing drawbridge.

[sprjus4]

^ Indeed it was NHS.  But even if it wasn't, it'd be eligible for Federal STP (Surface Transportation Program) funds.  On top of that, EVERY public bridge in the nation is eligible for Federal bridge funding.  So it's not that it wasn't eligible for funding...it was because neither VDOT nor the city had the funding at the time to build it toll-free.

Dominion Blvd was a Virginia state highway (VA 104) before it became part of a rerouted US 17.  sprjus' mentioning of trucks is the primary reason why US 17 was rerouted onto Dominion Blvd...namely the drawbridge at Deep Creek (though it was also a hairy turn northbound at VA 165).  There have been on-again/off-again plans to replace that bridge for at least 20 years now.  The west end of the relocated VA 165 was built as such to accommodate what was then planned as a realigned replacement of the Deep Creek bridge north of the existing drawbridge.

I recall reading in the past one of the reasons was due to funding, however I appear to have misread. Chesapeake tried for the longest amount of time to get public funding, including rejecting P3 proposals to replace it in hopes funding would eventually come. About 2010, they decided to go forth with the toll proposal themselves, and got about $90 million in public funds reducing bond & loan funding required, resulting in only $1 tolls. Originally, fully private funding proposals would have had rates that the Chesapeake Expressway has, about $3.

The Deep Creek Bridge Replacement has had a bumpy ride, but it's now fully funded and construction starts in September. It will be a 5-lane bridge, and use the existing alignment generally. It will also tie into the west end of the Moses Grandy Trl project done by the city around 2005, as you mentioned. It will cost around $48 million. It carries around 30,000 AADT, the same as Dominion Blvd does. That area is a severe bottleneck today traffic wise, with daily 2-4 mile backups. By 2022 when the project is complete, a lot of this should be relieved.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/images/departments/public_works/Deep+Creek+Rendering.pdf
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Projects/Deep+Creek+Bridge+FS.pdf

The truck restrictions would be removed when the bridge is complete, allowing trucks bound to US-17 South towards North Carolina to take a much more direct route than the existing routing.

[Beltway]

I worked on the design of that particular I-295 project in the early 1980s.  Tell me, what are the curve radii on each curve on US-17?  If you know so much, tell me, and then I will tell you if they meet 70 mph standards.

North of the Appomattox River, one curve has a radii of around 2,300 ft, posted at 70 MPH.
Here's the ones on US 17 rounded, heading north to south -
4,100 ft, 7,500 ft, 2,500 ft, 2,600 ft, 4,000 ft, 2,500 ft, 3,800 ft, 2,500 ft, 2,900 ft, 3,100 ft, 5,000 ft, 2,800 ft.
The smallest curve radii on US 17 is at 2,500 ft, and none of the curves have the amount of superelevation that I-295 does.

So you are eyeballing it and guessing.

You don't know what superelevation is.  The curves on US-17 have minimal superelevation.  The curves on I-295 have the maximum allowable superelevation.  Superelevation means "banking the roadway" and those I-295 curves have a lot of it and that allows a considerably higher design speed for a particular curvature.

Think about why racetracks are banked as steeply as they are.

So, by I-295's standards, US 17 would be eligible for 70 MPH. It's funny, you've mentioned the in the past substandard freeways on US 58 could hold 70 MPH with advisory speeds around sharp curves. Now you say the radii must meet 70 MPH standards in order to be posted on US 17, which they do nonetheless.

How many highways in South Hampton Roads are posted above 60 mph?  None.
This one won't be either.  Period.

The copy of the 2050 Master Transportation for the City of Chesapeake that I found was published November 2016 (which is -after- 2015).  It is a 2050 plan and there were no improvements listed on US-17 George Washington Highway.
No such US-17 upgrades are programmed with VDOT or HRTPO or HRTAC as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.
Give it up.  There is no official interest in Virginia for VI-87.

Interstate 87 got approved in May 2016 by AASHTO.

Only in the Tar Heel State.

The city plan was fully revised in 2014, the updated November 2016 plan was to include local road improvements suggested from the Dominion

[. . . . . . big snip of the same-old same-old . . . . . .]

Get back to me when it is on those TIPs and master plans and land use plans. 

The "Mayor's Advisory Committee on Comprehensive Plan Strategies" concept for developing the future comprehensive plan which includes transportation, etc. published back in August 2018 mentioned the I-87 proposal several times.

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 for the City of Chesapeake if they were seriously considering it.

Grassfield Pkwy - I've already mentioned, existing roads adequately serve this development. The expensive cost & complex design would not warrant construction here. You can replace this with Scenic Pkwy, which would require one.

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.  Scenic Parkway doesn't connect to Grassfield Parkway, you deceptive little troll.

Elevate US-17 over Grassfield Parkway on embankment with retaining walls, bridge and urban ramps, possibly at-grade ramps (ramp C-D) between that and the Cedar Road interchange.  That may cost $30 million or more.

Traffic demands either retention of the existing intersection or replacement with an interchange, and the "expensive cost & complex design" is no justification for doing neither.

Here is another big expense for converting US-17 to an Interstate highway --
The I-464/I-64 interchange. 

The existing interchange would meet interstate standards.  The ramps have adequate width, full shoulders, and is limited-access fully to I-64. Left-hand exits aren't preferred, but there's nothing that says it's not permitted on the system.

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.

Even if it actually was an issue, the I-87 designation can end just north of Great Bridge Blvd, where the mainline turn into the ramps. The ramps would fully connect it to I-464 / I-64, and the exit off I-64, I-464, and VA-168 can still read "I-87 South".

So it wouldn't connect to I-64 or I-464, or only by primary highways.  And you acknowledge that the connection is by "ramps" and not a mainline roadway.

So VI-87 is not important enough to actually connect to downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth via the Interstate highway system, that is what in effect you are saying.

interstate-standard ramps,

The Interstate mainline needs -roadways- not ramps.

Just curious, what massive bridge construction and reconfigurations would be needed?

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.

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.

Your recommendations for cheap, inadequate, substandard and unsafe road designs, to satisfy your hunger for red-white-and-blue trailblazers, sickens me.

[sprjus4]

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.

How many highways in South Hampton Roads are posted above 60 mph?  None.
This one won't be either.  Period.

I-64 Express Lanes (prior HOV lanes) in Norfolk. Has been posted 65 MPH since the early 2000s. The curve north of Norview Ave has a radii of 1,700 ft, and minimal superelevation. There's also no clear side, 10 ft right (or left depending which direction of flow) shoulders, and barrier wall on both side.

I-64 in Chesapeake was posted at 70 MPH before 1973. Back in 2001, VDOT evaluated raising the speed limit on I-64 between Indian River & Bowers Hill, I-264 between Bowers Hill & Portsmouth, and I-664 to 65 MPH. Up in North Hampton Roads, the highest speed limit was always 60 MPH. It was recently raised to 65 MPH as far south as I-664. It could easily be considered on highways in South Hampton Roads in the future. The I-64 High Rise Bridge expansion to 6 lanes has a design speed of 70 MPH, which means it would be posted at 65 MPH.

You mentioned US 58 between Bowers Hill and the west end of the Suffolk Bypass could be posted at 70 MPH. That's in South Hampton Roads. So why isn't US 17 eligible? US 58 Bypass of Suffolk has lower standards than US 17 does. Up to 60,000 AADT, some questionable curves, minimal superelevation... why does that get special exceptions that US 17 doesn't get?

Get back to me when it is on those TIPs and master plans and land use plans.

Will do.

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 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.

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.

Scenic Parkway doesn't connect to Grassfield Parkway, you deceptive little troll.

Ah, I love how you have to name-call when others disagree with your concepts. I was saying you didn't list Scenic Pkwy having an interchange, and that should be filled in where you put Grassfield Pkwy. IE -

So these would be required:
Ballahack Road (interchange)
Glencoe Street (ovepass)
Douglas Road (overpass)
Cornland Road (interchange)
Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport (interchange)
Business US-17 (interchange)
Eaglet Parkway (if not an interchange at least an overpass)
Scenic Parkway (interchange)

Traffic demands either retention of the existing intersection or replacement with an interchange, and the "expensive cost & complex design" is no justification for doing neither.

Again, I'd like to see some proof.

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. See the map I posted in my previous post, which you blatantly ignored.

Either if it did for some reason, I-73 through Greensboro takes a 25 MPH loop ramp to continue, and was signed in 2008.

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?

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.

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.

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).

Either way, there's full movements to I-464 which would satisfy connecting to another interstate, and not having lack of connection. I-464 designation carries down to the US 17 ramps, south of I-64.

Your recommendations for cheap, inadequate, substandard and unsafe road designs, to satisfy your hunger for red-white-and-blue trailblazers, sickens me.

Inadequate - the entire design is perfectly adequate today, and conform to interstate standards. You have this belief that left exits are prohibited on the interstate system, which is false. You also have this belief that interstate-to-interstate connections must be posted at 55 MPH, which again, is false. The I-87 mainline designation would end at the interchange. Within the interchange's boundary, high speed, 45 MPH ramps connect them, and are perfectly adequate, and your designs would do nothing but waste $200 million to satisfy your right exit theory, and 55 MPH theory, when the existing interchange has no issues whatsoever that those left exits and 45 MPH ramps cause. It's not like the left exit is heading to a local street, it's a major highway connection ramp.

Substandard - Every part of the interchange south of I-64 was built in 1999 and 2016, feature high speed 45 MPH direct ramps, have full 10 foot paved shoulders, 4 foot left shoulders. How is in substandard when I-87 mainline will end, and transition into ramps connecting to I-64 and I-464?

Unsafe - Again, 45 MPH high speed ramps, left high speed exits (not a 25 MPH left exit), full shoulders... how is it unsafe? If it was unsafe, then designs as recent as 2016 would not have constructed it that way.

------
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, proposing interchanges at every crossroad and even some places where roads don't currently exist or else it can't happen, saying higher speeds can't happen because it doesn't conform to some mystery standard you have yet to indicate, yet US 58, more substandard than US 17, can have 70 MPH speeds.

We get you hate the highway, but could you at least make some reasonable concepts, and use real interstate standards instead of made up ones, if you're going to make recommendations for a Virginia upgrade? 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. It would take some adjusting for locals, but everybody would have access. All interstate upgrades work this way. People have to use the frontage road (or in this case alt. routes which are adequate) to reach the interchange instead of turning directly onto the highway. 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.

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

[Beltway]

There is a substantial double penalty in both time and distance, compared to the current route.
Norfolk I-264/I-464 Berkley Bridge <--> Nash Community College (1/2 mile west of I-95/US-64)
US-64/I-95/US-58/I-264
135 mi  2:12 hr 
US-64/US-17/I-464
157 mi  2:33 hr
+16.3 %  +15.9%

Using current travel times & 55 MPH speed limits, yes. If you throw in an average speed of 70 MPH, using the formula, distance / speed, 157 / 70, that equals out to 2.24, or 2 hours and 14 minutes. 2 minutes slower than US 58.

Both routings average about 61.4 mph and about half of each already has 70 mph.

Given that US-17 and I-464 in Virginia will be no more than 60 mph, that cuts at least 2 mph off of your 70.  Given that most motorists would stop for a rest or food break on each (I would rarely drive 157 miles without one stop, and cars with 3 or more people would be almost certain to make a stop, and it is 207 miles between Norfolk and Raleigh on HPC 13), that further deteriorates an average speed and more so for the putatively 'higher average speed' route.

There are pending USDOT policy initiatives to obtain legislation that would limit large trucks to 60 mph via governors installed by the manufacturers.  That would put a further crimp on the speed ideas and any advantage from 70 mph speed limits.

BTW, we are calculating based on speed limits.  If a Roger Ramjet type wants to drive them far in excess of the speed limit then all bets are off, to the point of being irrelevant (to quote Mike Dahmus).

I-64 in Chesapeake was posted at 70 MPH before 1973.

What happened before 1973 is irrelevant to the speed limits that are in force -today- in nearly every major metro area in the U.S., very few are even above 55 mph. 

Most of I-495 in Maryland was posted at 70 mph, and in Virginia at 65 mph.  That is all well and good, but that highway has been 55 mph ever since 1973 on the general purpose lanes.  I-695 in Maryland is 55 mph. 

Both states had split speed limits then, 70/60 car/truck, and 65/55 car/truck, so there was little or no difference for large trucks between pre-1973 and today for the trucks on these metropolitan highways. 

Only time will tell, but count me very surprised if any general purpose roadway in South Hampton Roads is ever posted above 60 mph.

I know about the I-64 reversible HOT lanes, but express lanes with no large trucks and minimal entry and exit points have been posted higher.

There's no "double penalty", I wouldn't consider 2 minutes that, and if one drove 75 MPH most of that, which is a majority of drivers, would outrun US 58. If not that, a few red lights on US 58 add the 2 minutes, and I-87 beats it time wise. The "major improvements"  along US 58 would not remove the traffic signals, simply would relieve congestion, which most of the time is not an issue that causes backups.
You act like the speed limits will not be increased along US 17, yet they will be increased by 15 MPH for 80 miles, and likely at least 10 miles into Virginia.

Parts of that N.C. 80 miles already have 60 mph and 70 mph.

You act like the speed limits will not (or can not) be increased along US-58, yet according to your 'advocacy standards', the bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland could be increased to 70 mph, along with the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill after the two at-grade intersections have been replaced with interchanges ... and the 24 miles of expressway-like (*) highway between the Courtland and Emporia bypasses could be increased to 65 mph, along with the 5 miles of expressway-like highway between the Franklin and Holland bypasses.  There are relatively few signals on US-58, and the 2020 project to 6-lane and access-manage the 3.5 miles just west of Suffolk will alleviate congestion and increase travel speeds.

(*) Modification to state speed limit legislation to say something like "nonlimited-access access-managed 4-lane divided highways are allowed a statuary maximum of 65 mph".  At least indirectly those segments are access managed.

So using these speed limits it could be as little difference as say 66 mph average on the current route and 68 mph average on the VI-87 route, with the concomitant 21 minute time difference being not much different than today.  So VI-87 still would be at least 15% more timewise than US-58 and I-95, as well as being 16% more miles.

You need to let go of this excessive focus with speed limits, as no one can predict what will happen with them over the next 20 years. 
   

[sprjus4]

Both routings average about 61.4 mph and about half of each already has 70 mph.

Given that US-17 and I-464 in Virginia will be no more than 60 mph, that cuts at least 2 mph off of your 70.  Given that most motorists would stop for a rest or food break on each (I would rarely drive 157 miles without one stop, and cars with 3 or more people would be almost certain to make a stop, and it is 207 miles between Norfolk and Raleigh on HPC 13), that further deteriorates an average speed and more so for the putatively 'higher average speed' route.

Parts of that N.C. 80 miles already have 60 mph and 70 mph.

You act like the speed limits will not (or can not) be increased along US-58, yet according to your 'advocacy standards', the bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland could be increased to 70 mph, along with the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill after the two at-grade intersections have been replaced with interchanges ... and the 24 miles of expressway-like (*) highway between the Courtland and Emporia bypasses could be increased to 65 mph, along with the 5 miles of expressway-like highway between the Franklin and Holland bypasses.  There are relatively few signals on US-58, and the 2020 project to 6-lane and access-manage the 3.5 miles just west of Suffolk will alleviate congestion and increase travel speeds.

(*) Modification to state speed limit legislation to say something like "nonlimited-access access-managed 4-lane divided highways are allowed a statuary maximum of 65 mph".  At least indirectly those segments are access managed.

So using these speed limits it could be as little difference as say 66 mph average on the current route and 68 mph average on the VI-87 route, with the concomitant 21 minute time difference being not much different than today.  So VI-87 still would be at least 15% more timewise than US-58 and I-95, as well as being 16% more miles.

You need to let go of this excessive focus with speed limits, as no one can predict what will happen with them over the next 20 years.

I did some math to calculate times with many different speed factors, etc. from travel time between Nash Community College and the Berkley Bridge in Norfolk. If you'd like, I'll post my work. I took the speed limits of each individual segment, came up with a travel time based on distance / time, and added all the travel times together. The results are posted below.

For adding new, currently not proposed speed limits, I took your 65 MPH and 70 MPH concepts for US 58, along two different factors of 65 MPH or 70 MPH on rural US 17 in Chesapeake.

I also came up with a concept of I-87 was increased to 75 MPH in North Carolina. It was proposed legislation a few years back that certain rural segments of lightly traveled freeways could be increased to 75 MPH, and I-87 would fall into that category, being lightly traveled. I-95 wouldn't, because it has heavy traffic, and likely would have issues. The entire I-87 corridor is being designed with a design speed of 75 MPH, so a future increase could happen if new legislation was passed.

If you can add proposed legislation changes to allow 65 MPH on non-limited-access highways as a potential factor, I'll add 75 MPH as a potential factor for I-87.

Here's what I came up with -

EXISTING TIMES -
HPC #13 (existing) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Drive Time - 2 hours 32 minutes
Average Speed - 62.1 MPH

I-95 / U.S. Route 58 (existing) -
Total Distance - 136 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 12 minutes
Average Speed - 61.8 MPH

FUTURE TIMES -
Interstate 87 (60 MPH in Virginia, 70 MPH in North Carolina) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 17 minutes
Average Speed - 68.9 MPH

ADDING NEW SPEED LIMITS -
I-95 / U.S. Route 58 (70 MPH on bypasses + Bowers Hill to Suffolk, 65 MPH on existing 60 MPH non-freeway) -
Total Distance - 136 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 6 minutes
Average Speed - 64.8 MPH

I-95 / U.S. Route 58 (70 MPH on bypasses + Bowers Hill to Suffolk, no rural increase) -
Total Distance - 136 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 9 minutes
Average Speed - 63.5 MPH

Interstate 87 (12.9 miles of rural US 17 upgraded to 65 MPH in VA)
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 15 minutes
Average Speed - 69.2 MPH

Interstate 87 (12.9 miles of rural US 17 upgraded to 70 MPH in VA)
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 14 minutes
Average Speed - 69.7 MPH

Interstate 87 (133 miles of rural NC I-87 upgraded to 75 MPH, 60 MPH max in VA) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 9 minutes
Average Speed - 73 MPH

Interstate 87 (133 miles of rural NC I-87 upgraded to 75 MPH, rural US 17 upgraded to 65 MPH in VA) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 7 minutes
Average Speed - 74.1 MPH

Interstate 87 (133 miles of rural NC I-87 upgraded to 75 MPH, rural US 17 upgraded to 70 MPH in VA) -
Total Distance - 157 miles
Total Time - 2 hours 6 minutes
Average Speed - 74.8 MPH

----------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION -
There's a few different options here -
If U.S. Route 58 stays the same, it would remain at 2 hours 12 minutes, and I-87 was increased to 70 MPH in NC, and 60 MPH in VA, it would be around 2 hours 17 minutes, a 5 minute difference.

If U.S. Route 58 has rural segments upgraded to 65 MPH after legislation change, bypasses to 70 MPH, it would be 2 hours 6 minutes, an 11 minute difference. By this point, US 58 is the preferred option.

If U.S. Route 58 has only bypasses increased to 70 MPH, it would be 2 hours 9 minutes, an 8 minute difference. Still, learning slightly towards US 58.

If I-87 was increased to 70 MPH in Virginia, it would be 2 hours 14 minutes, 3 minutes faster than no increases, competing closer with a US 58 70 MPH bypass option.

I-87 was increased to 75 MPH in NC after legislation change, 70 MPH in Virginia, it would be 2 hours 6 minutes, 6 minutes faster than existing US 58, and 3 minutes faster than a US 58 70 MPH bypass option. If US 58 was 65 MPH on rural + 70 MPH on bypass, the times would be the exact same.

Like you said, we have no idea what the speed limits will be in 20 years. They can change to make US 58 faster, they could change to make I-87 the same or faster, nobody knows. But there's not ever going to a substantial increase of travel time along I-87 unless US 58 was hiked up significantly, 70 MPH on bypasses, 65 MPH on rural.

You act like the speed limits will not (or can not) be increased along US-58, yet according to your 'advocacy standards', the bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland could be increased to 70 mph, along with the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill after the two at-grade intersections have been replaced with interchanges ... and the 24 miles of expressway-like (*) highway between the Courtland and Emporia bypasses could be increased to 65 mph, along with the 5 miles of expressway-like highway between the Franklin and Holland bypasses.  There are relatively few signals on US-58, and the 2020 project to 6-lane and access-manage the 3.5 miles just west of Suffolk will alleviate congestion and increase travel speeds.

It's funny, because you keep saying US 17 in Chesapeake will never be increased beyond 60 MPH, and you'd be surprised to see speeds higher than 60 MPH in South Hampton Roads in one topic, however when you jump to US 58, now it can be 70 MPH all the way to Bowers Hill, and 70 MPH on substandard bypasses that have lower standard than US 17. You propose legislation changes to US 58 to make it 65 MPH on non-limited-access, well the same could be said about North Carolina's previous legislation proposal which almost passed, about rural, lightly traveled segments of interstate being increased to 75 MPH, which would apply to I-87, because it would likely not have an AADT higher than 20,000, whereas I-95 by that point would be over 60,000 or 70,000 AADT, and not be eligible for an increase.

Like you said, we have no idea what the speed limits will be in 20 years. They can change to make US 58 faster, they could change to make I-87 the same or faster, nobody knows. But there's not ever going to a substantial increase of travel time along I-87 unless US 58 was hiked up significantly, 70 MPH on bypasses, 65 MPH on rural.

There are pending USDOT policy initiatives to obtain legislation that would limit large trucks to 60 mph via governors installed by the manufacturers.  That would put a further crimp on the speed ideas and any advantage from 70 mph speed limits.

That's been proposed legislation for years, and has faced major opposition by truckers. The majority of the advantage of a 70 MPH would be felt by the average passenger vehicle, going on a long roadtrip. They can leave Hampton Roads, hop on the interstate, and start cruising at 70 MPH, and not have to sit through traffic lights on US 58 and hold at 45 - 60 MPH for 80 miles until hitting I-95. I'd certainly use the route if it existed today, I'm sure plenty of locals (not people on the forum who live hundreds of miles of away and think 15-20 additional miles, yet the same travel time at 70 MPH in a passenger vehicle is a waste) would agree.

I've said before, trucks are a different story.

[Beltway]

Like you said, we have no idea what the speed limits will be in 20 years. They can change to make US 58 faster, they could change to make I-87 the same or faster, nobody knows. But there's not ever going to a substantial increase of travel time along I-87 unless US 58 was hiked up significantly, 70 MPH on bypasses, 65 MPH on rural.

Let me cut right to the chase.  I'm not going to continue expending (probably wasting) my time discussing speed limit scenarios.

Looking at 2040, the year that NCDOT says would be their tentative completion date, there is no way to predict what will happen with speed limits by then, and I showed plausible scenarios whereby the average travel times on both corridors could be about same or within 2 mph.  You also ignored factoring in a stop break of about 10 minutes or more on each route, which would impact the average speeds.

Given that, I see no engineering logic at all in using speed limits as a predictor/justifier of building a new corridor when there is no real way to know what the speed limits will be then.

You also didn't factor in any major improvements (as in major widening and access control upgrades) to US-58 or I-95, and by 2040 it could be anywhere from a modest amount to a major amount, and that could impact speed limits as well, and travel times.

[sprjus4]

You also ignored factoring in a stop break of about 10 minutes or more on each route, which would impact the average speeds.

It wouldn't have an impact to which route is faster. A 10 minute stop on I-87 would add 10 minutes, just as a 10 minute stop on US 58 would add 10 minutes. At that point, it's just travel time, not which route is faster.

Given that, I see no engineering logic at all in using speed limits as a predictor/justifier of building a new corridor when there is no real way to know what the speed limits will be then.

It's not currently a predictor / justifier for building it. They want to bring US 17 up to interstate standards to connect the cities and towns along the route to I-95 and to Norfolk via an interstate highway. It will end up connecting via Raleigh to Hampton Roads for those who want an interstate trip at 70 MPH and no stop lights, but will mainly connect the towns to Norfolk via an interstate highway, and to I-95. The hopes is there will be more growth into North Carolina from Hampton Roads, and to expand businesses & economic growth south of the core (Hampton Roads, Norfolk, etc.) because it will have interstate access. A lot of businesses will not relocate if there's no interstate access within 10 miles. I believe the most important upgrade is the first one they proposed, between Elizabeth City and Norfolk, especially to achieve the goal of expanding business growth south with a new interstate highway. This section also carries 13,000 AADT, and has new residential suburbs and growth proposed south of the state line. As Elizabeth City continues to grow, it could end up reaching 20,000 AADT by 2040. Elizabeth City is part of Hampton Roads, and has no interstate connection to the core. This leg of highway being a freeway was considered in since the 70s, and when the bypasses of South Mills, Morgans Corner, and the relocated US 17 north of the existing freeway bypass were built, it was the intent it would end up being a freeway one day.

I know it may not seem like the best reason to justify an upgrade by Virginia standards, as the existing highway is adequate, however that's the official reasoning, and that's what they intend on doing by 2040, as you mention. Chesapeake has talked about finishing the freeway connection to *I-64, and it's been discussed occasionally by HRTPO, and may or may not get built in Virginia.

You also didn't factor in any major improvements (as in major widening and access control upgrades) to US-58 or I-95, and by 2040 it could be anywhere from a modest amount to a major amount, and that could impact speed limits as well, and travel times.

I added scenarios where US 58 has been upgraded to a full freeway between Suffolk and Bowers Hill, US 58 is a rural 65 MPH roadway, and the bypasses are posted at 70 MPH. I did a scenario where the Courtland - Franklin Bypass connector is built, but did not change the travel time by any minutes, meaning it could save maybe 20 - 40 seconds through that corridor. For the most, you can already drive the 2 miles at 55 MPH without getting hit by the red light, and the Courtland Interchange eliminated a light.

The 6-lane widening west of Suffolk would not increase the speed limit. It would be a 6-lane urban boulevard with sidewalks, crosswalks, 45 MPH speed limit, and actually add a few additional traffic lights. I have the design plans if you are curious. Granted, the lights would likely be synchronized to provide continuous flow. Either way, my average speed calculations did not factor any red lights, just continuous flow at the speed limit. I-87 would not have any red lights, a continuous 70 MPH interstate highway, whereas US 58 would have about 10.

As for I-95, no improvements would increase the speed limit, it's already maxed out at 70 MPH. Again, my average speed calculations did not factor traffic and congestion, so even if a widening is done, the speed is still 70 MPH. It's interesting to note, a lot of I-95 today is 65 MPH south of Rocky Mount. The 8-laning that starts this year between Fayetteville and I-40 is keeping its speed of 65 MPH, and not being designed for a 70 MPH speed limit (design speed 75). I don't think any 6-laning north of Rocky Mount would decrease the speed, but you never know.

*updated to correct "I-87" to "I-64".

[Beltway]

Given that, I see no engineering logic at all in using speed limits as a predictor/justifier of building a new corridor when there is no real way to know what the speed limits will be then.

It's not currently a predictor / justifier for building it. They want to bring US 17 up to interstate standards to connect the cities and towns along the route to I-95 and to Norfolk via an interstate highway. It will end up connecting via Raleigh to Hampton Roads for those who want an interstate trip at 70 MPH and no stop lights, but will mainly connect the towns to Norfolk via an interstate highway, and to I-95. The hopes is there will be more growth into North Carolina from Hampton Roads, and to expand businesses & economic growth south of the core (Hampton Roads, Norfolk, etc.) because it will have interstate access. A lot of businesses will not relocate if there's no interstate access within 10 miles.

That may benefit those northeastern N.C. counties, but it won't benefit Virginia, where there are already plenty of businesses and distribution centers along US-58 and I-64 and VA-168 and other highways, and more to come.  And it gets back to an Interstate highway not being warranted for only connecting a few small towns when there is no need for the longer corridor, when a 4-lane high speed highway already connects those N.C. towns to Raleigh.

As for I-95, no improvements would increase the speed limit, it's already maxed out at 70 MPH.

If the original section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike can be posted at 70 mph for cars, trucks and buses, again, you cannot predict future speed limits in 2040.  A modernized I-95 with 6 or more lanes and full 12-foot right and left shoulders, might carry the 75 mph that you proposed, in areas with curves not greater than 2 degrees and 30 minutes.

[sprjus4]

That may benefit those northeastern N.C. counties, but it won't benefit Virginia, where there are already plenty of businesses and distribution centers along US-58 and I-64 and VA-168 and other highways, and more to come.

It will benefit Chesapeake along U.S. 17. U.S. 17 is a failing corridor right now. The developments along Grassfield Pkwy are dead, there's numerous of store fronts abandoned, Kroger had planned to move in, though has canceled the project indefinitely. There's a few active businesses in the area, like some fast-food, restaurants, a mattress store, and a couple others, though not too much. Cedar Rd is the most successful thing over there. Scenic Pkwy was supposed to be an industrial park, but failed, so they're building neighborhoods. That area has not seen good success really, and I-87 could boost is significantly, and Chesapeake may be willing to take the chance, as seen by their feasibility study proposal, potential additional in the next comp. plan, etc.

US-58 is very successful economically, and also I-64. A major trucking corridor, and an interstate. An interstate would bring benefits south of I-64. VA-168 is a tourist route to the Outer Banks, is crowded on summer weekends, and has successful retail, mainly off Exit 8, though no warehouses, distributions center, etc. exist on the route. Any big developments stop really south of I-64. Continuing interstate to the south would open up new opportunities not available with a "4-lane high speed highway".

And it gets back to an Interstate highway not being warranted for only connecting a few small towns when there is no need for the longer corridor, when a 4-lane high speed highway already connects those N.C. towns to Raleigh.

North Carolina standards vs. Virginia standards. They have plans to upgrade numerous "4-lane high speed highways" all around the state to freeways eventually, and this is one piece. Eventually, US 17 is slated to become a freeway down to South Carolina, and this US 17 80 mile upgrade is a significant piece of that. Virginia operates differently, where they "preserve" their arterial highways and apply access-management. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see why you want to stop the upgrade just because it doesn't meet Virginia's policies on where a freeway is warranted or not. Virginia and North Carolina are two different states, and do things differently.

If the original section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike can be posted at 70 mph for cars, trucks and buses, again, you cannot predict future speed limits in 2040.

But apparently US 17, a modern & safer design in Chesapeake can / will never be posted above 60 MPH.

How many highways in South Hampton Roads are posted above 60 mph?  None.
This one won't be either.  Period.

VDOT (or nearly any DOT) is not going to post a speed limit that is higher than the design speed.  Period.

A modernized I-95 with 6 or more lanes and full 12-foot right and left shoulders, might carry the 75 mph that you proposed, in areas with curves not greater than 2 degrees and 30 minutes.

The amount of traffic that utilizes the roadway, I wouldn't see them posting 75 MPH on it. By the soon-to-be under construction widening plans, it appears they are staying on existing alignment, widening to the median, and not redoing curves. That's why the new section of I-95 will only be 65 MPH, and the median will be have 10 foot paved shoulders + barrier wall. Unless the current 70 MPH section has a design speed 75 MPH when widened, it likely will not change, under your "...(or nearly any DOT) is not going to post a speed limit that is higher than the design speed.  Period." statement. But, I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

[Roadsguy]

If the original section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike can be posted at 70 mph for cars, trucks and buses...

This is what I always say about speed limits even just in the same state. Almost every rural freeway in PA could be 70 for most of its length, and straighter roads like most of the NJTP or the first ~45 miles of the PA Turnpike Northeast Extension could be 75 or perhaps even 80 if they have few exits. Much of I-95 in NC does look like it could be 75 mph after reconstruction to improve safety and capacity.

[Beltway]

That may benefit those northeastern N.C. counties, but it won't benefit Virginia, where there are already plenty of businesses and distribution centers along US-58 and I-64 and VA-168 and other highways, and more to come.

It will benefit Chesapeake along U.S. 17. U.S. 17 is a failing corridor right now. The developments along Grassfield Pkwy are dead, there's numerous of store fronts abandoned, Kroger had planned to move in, though has canceled the project indefinitely. There's a few active businesses in the area, like some fast-food, restaurants, a mattress store, and a couple others, though not too much. Cedar Rd is the most successful thing over there. Scenic Pkwy was supposed to be an industrial park, but failed, so they're building neighborhoods. That area has not seen good success really, and I-87 could boost is significantly, and Chesapeake may be willing to take the chance, as seen by their feasibility study proposal, potential additional in the next comp. plan, etc.

Northern Chesapeake is near the core of Norfolk and Portsmouth and is near Virginia Beach, and far from those N.C. rural counties.  An US-17 at-grade expressway upgraded to a freeway will have no significant business benefit to northern Chesapeake; they will benefit from better connections to those other three cities; that is why the 2050 Master Transportation Plan of Chesapeake has the Pleasant Grove Parkway and the Southeastern Parkway planned but no interchanges for US-17.  Also has widening of all of I-64 and I-664 in the city.  Widening of all of US-460 Military Highway in the city.

The Pleasant Grove Parkway is a proposed new 4-lane highway, about 12 miles long, generally from US-460 in the Bowers Hill area, passing south of Deep Creek, crossing US-17 near Eaglet Parkway, connecting to VA-168 in the Hillcrest Parkway area.
   

[sprjus4]

that is why the 2050 Master Transportation Plan of Chesapeake has the Pleasant Grove Parkway and the Southeastern Parkway planned but no interchanges for US-17.  Also has widening of all of I-64 and I-664 in the city.  Widening of all of US-460 Military Highway in the city.

That Master Plan has some unfeasible proposals. While I do support widening I-664 and I-64, along with Military Hwy, they have some crazy proposals for the southern section of the city. Four-laning every rural roadway with 2,000 AADT, 8-lanes on VA-168 on the southern at-grade expressway portion, etc.

I think one of the biggest (yet most expensive) need is widening VA-168 to 8 lanes between I-64 and Exit 11. That road carries around 80,000 AADT, and has major congestion.

Actually, interestingly enough, the 1990 Master Transportation Plan called for Dominion Blvd being a freeway all the way to Route 17 with interchanges, where the existing at-grade portion of Dominion Blvd is today. The Route 17 relocation was not apart of the 1990 Master Transportation Plan, but instead a 4-laned Route 17 where the old road is today.

The Pleasant Grove Parkway is a proposed new 4-lane highway, about 12 miles long, generally from US-460 in the Bowers Hill area, passing south of Deep Creek, crossing US-17 near Eaglet Parkway, connecting to VA-168 in the Hillcrest Parkway area.

Yes, I'm aware of the Pleasant Grove Parkway, I've invested research into that project years back. The 1990 and 2005 Master Transportation Plans had it as a limited-access rural freeway within a 250 ft right of way. The new plan doesn't call for a freeway. It's a 45 MPH at-grade parkway, curb & gutter, sidewalk, etc. with signalized intersections. It would be an extension of Hillcrest Parkway essentially. It's would meet with Military Highway just west of the I-64 interchange.

Old design plans showed having a full interchange with I-64, pictured below, but that was when it was proposed as a freeway. I believe if it was built as a freeway, it would provide significant relief to VA-168 between Great Bridge and I-64, which has major congestion issues, along as being a Deep Creek Bypass, which that area is also a mess. The only issue however is funding, though even an at-grade would cost $100 million minimum, and now a lack of interest from the city as a full freeway concept. I don't see it ever getting built, simply because of the price tag. A freeway would carry better weight for funding beyond city level, IMHO.

Another issue, with both proposals, is how to cross the Dismal Swamp Canal. A high rise bridge would cost too much, and a draw bridge would have lifts.

[sprjus4]

Much of I-95 in NC does look like it could be 75 mph after reconstruction to improve safety and capacity.

I agree, but with the design of the first section of widening between Fayetteville and I-40, it's unlikely it will be designed to carry higher speeds. The widening calls for a design speed of 70 MPH, and a posted speed of 65 MPH, as existing. The 75 MPH proposal which almost passed a few years back called for 75 MPH to be - reserved for rural, lightly traveled sections of limited-access freeway, and only where 70 MPH (I.E. design speed 75) currently exists. Therefore, any 65 MPH section would not be eligible, or require improvements to bring it up to 70 MPH (design speed 75) standard, allowing 75 MPH, and I-95 is not a lightly traveled, rural freeway / interstate. I guess people will continue to keep going 80 MPH either way.

[Roadsguy]

Much of I-95 in NC does look like it could be 75 mph after reconstruction to improve safety and capacity.

I agree, but with the design of the first section of widening between Fayetteville and I-40, it's unlikely it will be designed to carry higher speeds. The widening calls for a design speed of 70 MPH, and a posted speed of 65 MPH, as existing. The 75 MPH proposal which almost passed a few years back called for 75 MPH to be - reserved for rural, lightly traveled sections of limited-access freeway, and only where 70 MPH (I.E. design speed 75) currently exists. Therefore, any 65 MPH section would not be eligible, or require improvements to bring it up to 70 MPH (design speed 75) standard, allowing 75 MPH, and I-95 is not a lightly traveled, rural freeway / interstate. I guess people will continue to keep going 80 MPH either way.

Simple, just pass a law defining all freeway speed limits as 70 mph for a ten minute window centered on the passing of a 75 mph bill.

[Beltway]

that is why the 2050 Master Transportation Plan of Chesapeake has the Pleasant Grove Parkway and the Southeastern Parkway planned but no interchanges for US-17.  Also has widening of all of I-64 and I-664 in the city.  Widening of all of US-460 Military Highway in the city.

That Master Plan has some unfeasible proposals. While I do support widening I-664 and I-64, along with Military Hwy, they have some crazy proposals for the southern section of the city. Four-laning every rural roadway with 2,000 AADT, 8-lanes on VA-168 on the southern at-grade expressway portion, etc.
I think one of the biggest (yet most expensive) need is widening VA-168 to 8 lanes between I-64 and Exit 11. That road carries around 80,000 AADT, and has major congestion.

I did see that, plus 6-laning all the way to N.C.  That is part of the mix that will necessitate a major upgrade to the interchange of I-64/I-464/US-17.

Actually, interestingly enough, the 1990 Master Transportation Plan called for Dominion Blvd being a freeway all the way to Route 17 with interchanges, where the existing at-grade portion of Dominion Blvd is today. The Route 17 relocation was not apart of the 1990 Master Transportation Plan, but instead a 4-laned Route 17 where the old road is today.

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.

The Pleasant Grove Parkway is a proposed new 4-lane highway, about 12 miles long, generally from US-460 in the Bowers Hill area, passing south of Deep Creek, crossing US-17 near Eaglet Parkway, connecting to VA-168 in the Hillcrest Parkway area.

Yes, I'm aware of the Pleasant Grove Parkway, I've invested research into that project years back. The 1990 and 2005 Master Transportation Plans had it as a limited-access rural freeway within a 250 ft right of way. The new plan doesn't call for a freeway. It's a 45 MPH at-grade parkway, curb & gutter, sidewalk, etc. with signalized intersections. It would be an extension of Hillcrest Parkway essentially. It's would meet with Military Highway just west of the I-64 interchange.

Still an expensive new location highway.  Would need an interchange with US-17 should that become a freeway, and while it could be argued about which highway to "charge" that to, it IMHO would be chargeable to a freeway upgrade of US-17 since an at-grade intersection would be workable otherwise.

[sprjus4]

I did see that, plus 6-laning all the way to N.C.  That is part of the mix that will necessitate a major upgrade to the interchange of I-64/I-464/US-17.

It's arguable a 6-laning is less important, at least south of Exit 10. It's only 30,000 AADT at that point, and for the time being, the highway is adequate. Between Exit 10 and 11, a 6-laning can occur within the median. The eighth lane would come in at Exit 11, about 20,000 AADT enter / leave VA-168 at this point. For the Intracoastal Waterway crossing, the existing bridge can be retained & converted into 4 lanes one way, and a new parallel 4-lane bridge can be constructed on either side. North of there, a mix of median and outer widening with the 40 ft median. The Oak Grove Connector has a 60 foot median, and all widening can occur in the median for that segment.

For the VA-168 / I-64 / I-464 / US-17 interchange, a massive expansion is apart of the I-64 High Rise Bridge Corridor Widening Phase #2 programmed around 2030.


The official concept would obviously be modified, for one, it does not factor in the Dominion Blvd freeway upgrade. Another factor, the I-464 bridges over I-64 need to be replaced with interstate-standard 4 lane (3 thru, one acceleration lane) bridges in each direction.

A concept for 8 lanes of VA-168 approaching this interchange heading northbound, at the I-64 Westbound ramp, the right lane would exit, and the second to right lane would be straight or exit (straight / straight / straight-right / right). At the new I-64 EB / existing US 17 SB ramp, the right would be exit, and the middle would be straight or exit (straight / straight-right / right), onto a 2-lane flyover towards the High Rise Bridge. That leaves 2 lanes left heading towards I-464 north.

A concept for southbound, the loop from I-64 EB to VA-168 SB would result in 4 southbound lanes at the I-464 overpass. The lane coming from the loop would exit onto US 17 South, and the second to right lane would be straight onto VA-168 SB / exit on to US 17. (straight / straight / straight-right / right). The VA-168 SB overpass over the US-17 NB exit would be widened to 3 lanes, and the 4th lane would come in from I-64 WB to VA-168 SB.

So 2 bridge replacements, 1 widening, 3 new long bridges, and a lot of retaining wall, especially on I-64 towards Battlefield Blvd. There's a cost estimate posted for this project alone, which is about $400 million IIRC. It would be constructed & funded under the $1+ billion High Rise Bridge Phase #2 improvements in the 2030s.

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?

Still an expensive new location highway.

Likely $180 million, minimum, and that's $15 million per mile. A freeway, though not currently proposed for that corridor, would be about $420 million, $35 million per mile roughly. And that's in today's numbers. I don't see it ever being built IMO.

Would need an interchange with US-17 should that become a freeway, and while it could be argued about which highway to "charge" that to, it IMHO would be chargeable to a freeway upgrade of US-17 since an at-grade intersection would be workable otherwise.

Simple answer - whichever comes last pays the bill. If US-17 is an interstate before the parkway is built, then the Parkway's construction would have to fund the interchange, because at that point, you can't construct an at-grade on an interstate-highway. If the Parkway is already built with an at-grade intersection, and US-17 is being converted into an interstate, it would have to fund an interchange with the Parkway to maintain access with a major roadway, a thoroughfare between the south and north.

[froggie]

^ 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.