AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)  (Read 33302 times)

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2063
  • Age: 47
  • Last Login: Today at 01:49:05 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #400 on: October 11, 2017, 06:54:06 AM »

Since it's come up -- has there ever been any talk within VA transportation circles about deployment of an Interstate (or at least Interstate-grade) route along US 58 from I-85 east to the Hampton Roads metroplex?  Since it's pretty much a consensus -- at least in this forum -- that such a route would be far superior to any other route intended to connect that metro area with NC and points south, has anyone put forth a serious proposal for such at either (a) at the state level or (b) in any form of media?  If any posters based closer to the region have any info regarding such a proposal (or the lack thereof), please chime in!

2010 study on the US 58 corridor with multimodal/freight considerations in mind: http://www.vtrans.org/resources/VSMMFS-II_US58.pdf

They do not even mention converting 58 into an interstate anywhere.  Have not found any study in advance of the 1989 law creating the US 58 Corridor stuff.

Quote
the state of Virginia, which hasn't sought to deploy any new Interstate corridors within its borders (save the locally promoted but withering I-73 proposal) since the system's inception. 

This is not an accurate statement.  Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.

Also studied what to do with US 29 including freeway conversion/construction - summarized here - http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/Route_29/final/Chapt_5.pdf


Logged
Clinched:
I: 4 12 16 17 20 26 27 30 59 64 66 68 72 73 ew74 77 78 79 82 83 ew84 85 ew86 e88 97 99
US: 4 6N 9W 11E 11W 13 15 19W 21 44 46 48 58 72 92 113 117 123 130 158 163 176 178 192 206 209 211 219 220 221 222 258 264 276 290 311 319 322 340 360 378 401 ew422 501 521 522 601 701
PriSystems: VA, DE

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1025
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 07:20:12 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #401 on: October 11, 2017, 11:13:50 AM »

Since it's come up -- has there ever been any talk within VA transportation circles about deployment of an Interstate (or at least Interstate-grade) route along US 58 from I-85 east to the Hampton Roads metroplex?  Since it's pretty much a consensus -- at least in this forum -- that such a route would be far superior to any other route intended to connect that metro area with NC and points south, has anyone put forth a serious proposal for such at either (a) at the state level or (b) in any form of media?  If any posters based closer to the region have any info regarding such a proposal (or the lack thereof), please chime in!

The only person who proposed making US-58 an interstate between I-77 and I-664 was a former GOP gubernatorial candidate Frank Wagner, who lost the primary earlier this year. Nobody else couldn't give two shits.

However, the HRTPO lists US-58 as being upgraded to interstate standards in the future between I-664 and the Suffolk bypass, but no I-shields were mentioned.

Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1025
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 07:20:12 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #402 on: October 11, 2017, 11:27:50 AM »

There is very little population in eastern NC on that route once east of Rocky Mount, just a few small towns.  For the umpteenth time, there is a very adequate 4-lane high speed highway already there; there is no need for an Interstate highway.
No need to shoot the messenger. I only explained why there's support for it in NC. Hampton Roads has also supported it. I-87 itself doesn't go through high populated areas east of Rocky Mount, but it acts as an artery that the region south of US-64 can connect to, hence the push for the Gateway Corridor (NC-11/US-13) between Kinston and Bethel. I agree that the existing US-64/US-17 as they are now is adequate, especially compared to nearby US-70/Future I-42, which has been a nightmare for years. Why US-64 and US-264 were made freeways before US-70 is beyond me. :banghead:

I haven't seen much support for it in Hampton Roads news media.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-A7-Hampton%2520Roads%2520to%2520Raleigh%2520Highway%2520Corridor-Future%2520Interstate%2520Designation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvzc6m7-jWAhUE7YMKHfF_CWQQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw1yDcObwpbIujuVJWQnIqeh
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #403 on: October 11, 2017, 11:44:44 AM »

I haven't seen much support for it in Hampton Roads news media.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-A7-Hampton%2520Roads%2520to%2520Raleigh%2520Highway%2520Corridor-Future%2520Interstate%2520Designation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvzc6m7-jWAhUE7YMKHfF_CWQQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw1yDcObwpbIujuVJWQnIqeh

It appears from that article that most of the advocacy is coming from N.C.

One major quote that I dispute --
"Hampton Roads and Raleigh‐Cary are two of the largest metropolitan regions in the eastern United States served by a single primary Interstate route (I‐64 in the case of Hampton Roads).  This initiative would create a second primary Interstate for both areas, and connect these two southern mid‐Atlantic economic engines together."

Baloney!  As I have pointed out repeatedly, the out-of-the-way routing will NOT supplant the existing preferred traffic route between Hampton Roads and Raleigh-Durham, and it is irrelevant to claim that it is "a second primary Interstate" for Hampton Roads.  Raleigh already has a Future I-x95 to connect it to I-95, just because it is not a "primary Interstate" does not mean that it is not a full member of the Interstate system.

Just because an official body concludes something doesn't make it right, logical or beneficial.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 11:48:28 AM by Beltway »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #404 on: October 11, 2017, 12:08:42 PM »

Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.

Did they "try" or did they just study it?  1960 was before the construction of the CBBT, so the apparent issue there is 17 miles of open sea that the Interstate would have to cross, and nobody had ever before built a crossing of anywhere near that length over open sea.

I recall that the 2006 study was ordered by the General Assembly to "determine the interest of the affected states" in an I-99 corridor between Wilmington DE and Charleston SC, traversing the Delmarva Peninsula. 

The conclusion was "the level of response received from the majority of the four respondent states indicates little interest in new interstate / limited access improvements along the proposed corridor."  It also said that Maryland’s major efforts on its Eastern Shore will be to upgrade US-50 and MD-404.

Also studied what to do with US 29 including freeway conversion/construction - summarized here - http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/Route_29/final/Chapt_5.pdf

Unlike most states, N.C. is very pro-growth and pro-development and almost never has any local opposition to a proposal for a new freeway or new beltway.

A US-29 freeway or "I-83" has been theorized before in VA.  Albemarle County would never approve such a route, and an MPO like CAMPO would need to approve such a project before the state could approve it.  Without the segment in that county such an Interstate would not be possible, at least not a completed Interstate.   Albemarle County won't even approve a US-29 bypass extension at Whoville.

Virginia extensively studied a western outer freeway bypass of Washington, D.C., but Maryland never showed any interest in building their segment, thus rendering the proposal of low value.  This could have been an Interstate highway, perhaps I-93.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 12:27:40 PM by Beltway »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #405 on: October 11, 2017, 12:34:06 PM »

.........the state of Virginia, which hasn't sought to deploy any new Interstate corridors within its borders (save the locally promoted but withering I-73 proposal) since the system's inception.

This is not an accurate statement.  Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.

IIRC, the Eastern Shore proposal, including an expanded CBBT in the 2006 iteration, was instigated by Delaware and to a lesser degree by Maryland; Virginia went along with it only to appease much the same Hampton Roads interests that have provided what support there is within VA for the I-87 corridor, as cited by LM117:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-A7-Hampton%2520Roads%2520to%2520Raleigh%2520Highway%2520Corridor-Future%2520Interstate%2520Designation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvzc6m7-jWAhUE7YMKHfF_CWQQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw1yDcObwpbIujuVJWQnIqeh
Just because an official body concludes something doesn't make it right, logical or beneficial.

Yes -- but it makes it doable as well as feasible!  While righteous indignation may be an appropriate response to something one believes to be a wasteful and unnecessary undertaking, it is just that -- an expressed opinion of opposition, equivalent to a "letter to the editor" on an op-ed page (albeit a virtual "op-ed page" largely dedicated to such expressions).  But at this point the corridor in question is well under way regarding the developmental process; entities affected by this proposal have begun to get their "ducks in a row" to deal with it or, perhaps, take advantage of it (I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Pilot or other truck-stop operators are looking for suitable properties along US 64 or 17!);  such is the nature of Interstate corridor development. 

And, as I've previously stated, the eastern segment of US 58 east of I-85 would have provided the most efficient way to effect a southwest egress point from Hampton Roads; it's been serving as such, albeit in a less-than-optimal fashion, since I-85 and I-95 were built.  But aside from the candidate Wagner as cited above, who simply yakked about it within the context of a political campaign (which tends to make such sentiments or opinions questionable at best), the concept of an Interstate route along this corridor hasn't been breached in official circles (VA DOT or other entities).  Despite its logistic superiority, such a concept just hasn't even reached the starting gate, much less any serious planning efforts.  I'm sure regional posters could supply informed speculation as to why this has been the case:  VA's commonwealth system, prioritization of greater NoVA needs, some internal VA criteria that favors the status quo (adequate unless proven otherwise), and so on and so forth.  But obviously the system utilized within NC, like it or not, appears to be more efficient at getting concepts translated into working realities.  And thus a longer and intrinsically less efficient corridor with 90+% of its mileage within NC is born and, for lack of a better term, nurtured! 

Perhaps it's just as simple as: NC sees benefit accruing from new Interstate mileage, while VA, for the most part, does not.  That translates into difficulties for projects that cross that particular state line; the parties involved will likely work it out in the long run, with solutions that may reflect the compromises that would be required to achieve a reasonable result.  We'll just have to see!     

« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 12:36:34 PM by sparker »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #406 on: October 11, 2017, 12:52:50 PM »

IIRC, the Eastern Shore proposal, including an expanded CBBT in the 2006 iteration, was instigated by Delaware and to a lesser degree by Maryland; Virginia went along with it only to appease much the same Hampton Roads interests that have provided what support there is

The 2006 VDOT study is online. 

A copy of a 2006 letter from the DelDOT SecTrans says that they were considering extending the DE-1 superhighway to the Maryland state line following the US-113 corridor, possibly with an Interstate designation.

A copy of a 2006 letter from the MDOT SecTrans says that Maryland has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore.  It is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades.  It also said that while it is planning on upgrading US-113 to four lanes thruout, that it is not their preferred route for north-south inter-state traffic, that US-13 is their preferred route.

So while Delaware may be pursuing this, Maryland was definitely not interested.

Knowing Maryland highway planning as I do, I seriously doubt that there has been any change since 2006.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 01:07:09 PM by Beltway »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #407 on: October 11, 2017, 05:04:38 PM »

IIRC, the Eastern Shore proposal, including an expanded CBBT in the 2006 iteration, was instigated by Delaware and to a lesser degree by Maryland; Virginia went along with it only to appease much the same Hampton Roads interests that have provided what support there is

The 2006 VDOT study is online. 

A copy of a 2006 letter from the DelDOT SecTrans says that they were considering extending the DE-1 superhighway to the Maryland state line following the US-113 corridor, possibly with an Interstate designation.

A copy of a 2006 letter from the MDOT SecTrans says that Maryland has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore.  It is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades.  It also said that while it is planning on upgrading US-113 to four lanes thruout, that it is not their preferred route for north-south inter-state traffic, that US-13 is their preferred route.

So while Delaware may be pursuing this, Maryland was definitely not interested.

Knowing Maryland highway planning as I do, I seriously doubt that there has been any change since 2006.

So it looks like DE and MD wouldn't have agreed upon a corridor alignment in any case (DE probably wanted to ensure or enhance access to their beach areas, hence the US 113/DE 1 corridor choice).  Don't really fault MD for not wanting to deploy a main N-S corridor along US 113; there's plenty of industry in and around Salisbury to generate and receive truck traffic, so they would naturally be more interested in a corridor serving that city rather than one farther east (and the presence of an Interstate-grade Salisbury bypass doesn't hurt that prospect).

Long-term, if DE and MD can agree on this, I could see an Interstate-designated corridor using DE 1 south to Dover and US 13 or a close parallel down to Salisbury -- but nothing further than that unless a sea change happens re the attitudes in the VA portion of the peninsula (and the CBBT is brought out to 2+2 for its full length).     
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #408 on: October 11, 2017, 06:11:31 PM »

The 2006 VDOT study is online. 
A copy of a 2006 letter from the DelDOT SecTrans says that they were considering extending the DE-1 superhighway to the Maryland state line following the US-113 corridor, possibly with an Interstate designation.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the MDOT SecTrans says that Maryland has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore.  It is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades.  It also said that while it is planning on upgrading US-113 to four lanes thruout, that it is not their preferred route for north-south inter-state traffic, that US-13 is their preferred route.
So while Delaware may be pursuing this, Maryland was definitely not interested.
Knowing Maryland highway planning as I do, I seriously doubt that there has been any change since 2006.
So it looks like DE and MD wouldn't have agreed upon a corridor alignment in any case (DE probably wanted to ensure or enhance access to their beach areas, hence the US 113/DE 1 corridor choice).  Don't really fault MD for not wanting to deploy a main N-S corridor along US 113; there's plenty of industry in and around Salisbury to generate and receive truck traffic, so they would naturally be more interested in a corridor serving that city rather than one farther east (and the presence of an Interstate-grade Salisbury bypass doesn't hurt that prospect).
Long-term, if DE and MD can agree on this, I could see an Interstate-designated corridor using DE 1 south to Dover and US 13 or a close parallel down to Salisbury -- but nothing further than that unless a sea change happens re the attitudes in the VA portion of the peninsula (and the CBBT is brought out to 2+2 for its full length).     

Did you read what I wrote?  Did you look at a map?  US-113 is about 20 miles east of Salisbury.  Delaware is not looking at the US-13 corridor.  MDOT has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore.  MDOT is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades.  US-113 is not MDOT's preferred route for north-south traffic, US-13 is their preferred route. 

Maryland is not planning any all-freeway corridor on the Eastern Shore, never has and probably never will.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 06:17:25 PM by Beltway »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #409 on: October 11, 2017, 07:39:36 PM »

The 2006 VDOT study is online. 
A copy of a 2006 letter from the DelDOT SecTrans says that they were considering extending the DE-1 superhighway to the Maryland state line following the US-113 corridor, possibly with an Interstate designation.
A copy of a 2006 letter from the MDOT SecTrans says that Maryland has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore.  It is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades.  It also said that while it is planning on upgrading US-113 to four lanes thruout, that it is not their preferred route for north-south inter-state traffic, that US-13 is their preferred route.
So while Delaware may be pursuing this, Maryland was definitely not interested.
Knowing Maryland highway planning as I do, I seriously doubt that there has been any change since 2006.
So it looks like DE and MD wouldn't have agreed upon a corridor alignment in any case (DE probably wanted to ensure or enhance access to their beach areas, hence the US 113/DE 1 corridor choice).  Don't really fault MD for not wanting to deploy a main N-S corridor along US 113; there's plenty of industry in and around Salisbury to generate and receive truck traffic, so they would naturally be more interested in a corridor serving that city rather than one farther east (and the presence of an Interstate-grade Salisbury bypass doesn't hurt that prospect).
Long-term, if DE and MD can agree on this, I could see an Interstate-designated corridor using DE 1 south to Dover and US 13 or a close parallel down to Salisbury -- but nothing further than that unless a sea change happens re the attitudes in the VA portion of the peninsula (and the CBBT is brought out to 2+2 for its full length).     

Did you read what I wrote?  Did you look at a map?  US-113 is about 20 miles east of Salisbury.  Delaware is not looking at the US-13 corridor.  MDOT has not considered designating an Interstate route on its Eastern Shore.  MDOT is planning access control improvements to the US-13 corridor, but no freeway upgrades.  US-113 is not MDOT's preferred route for north-south traffic, US-13 is their preferred route. 

Maryland is not planning any all-freeway corridor on the Eastern Shore, never has and probably never will.

In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, don't have a cow, man!  I'm just speculating as to what might occur if there is an actual meeting of the minds between the states that make up Delmarva.  I've been to Salisbury several times; one of my vendors, Toroid of Maryland, has their corporate HQ and principal production plant there.  I'm always surprised at the commercial traffic levels in and around a city of only about 40K population -- and at the resultant congestion, particularly on US 13 north of town.  While you don't think that there's a chance in hell than there will ever be a continuous I-grade facility down the Delmarva, I'd posit that the congestion elsewhere along the Northeast Corridor will prompt further looks at such a corridor (if there would be some way to placate the NIMBY's in coastal VA) as a relief route.  But I can't see MD engaging in any planning efforts that don't include Salisbury (commercially, it's the 800-pound gorilla of the peninsula).  The corridor might not be fully situated down one existing N-S facility but may be a bit convoluted to serve the needs of DE (recreational coastal access, a main source of state revenue) and MD (the aforementioned city); this may require something heading down the 1/113 corridor for a while then veering west to serve Salisbury at a reasonable distance. 

But this is all speculation verging on the fictional; it's not likely I'll see an Interstate corridor down Delmarva in the time that the actuarial tables project I'll have left (for the record, between 14 and 19 years).  But at the same time -- and as should be obvious if anyone's read my various posts -- I have little or no reverence for the status quo; if two states are presently at loggerheads regarding planning efforts, I certainly don't assume that situation to be permanent.  It'll take a lot of negotiation -- and a shitload of external pressure -- to get any project that crosses state lines to fruition.  And right now that external pressure will likely come as the I-95/Northeast corridor itself gets ever more onerous to travel; alternatives will be explored -- and Delmarva is an obvious choice for the task of diverting through traffic away from the Baltimore/Washington/Richmond chokepoints.  Hasn't gotten quite to that point yet -- but give it 15-20 more years -- and watch previously dismissed concepts revisited to the point where parochial concerns will be relegated to secondary status at best.  When that happens, look out for the "Delmarva Thruway" as a considered concept.

But Scott's reading of the situation is probably valid for a few more years -- there won't be a near-term prioritization of any N-S corridor in that area.  The only possible regional Interstate incursion would be if DE seeks such status for DE 1, which, unless there's some in-state movement to do so that hasn't yet been detected, is probably pointless.  In any case, this whole Delmarva digression is too much of a detour from the original I-87/South discussion and should be broken off into its own thread if continued.           
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #410 on: October 11, 2017, 08:39:55 PM »

<< Delmarva north-south corridor >>

If you want to discuss it, how about doing it in the Fictional Highways group. 
That is a good place for highway proposals that are not in STIPs or in 20-year Long Range Plans.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2063
  • Age: 47
  • Last Login: Today at 01:49:05 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #411 on: October 11, 2017, 09:42:53 PM »

Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.

Did they "try" or did they just study it?  1960 was before the construction of the CBBT, so the apparent issue there is 17 miles of open sea that the Interstate would have to cross, and nobody had ever before built a crossing of anywhere near that length over open sea.



Tried it in both 1945 and 1960.  See my I-99 page which has links to the CTB Minutes that said so...

http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/i099.htm

Logged
Clinched:
I: 4 12 16 17 20 26 27 30 59 64 66 68 72 73 ew74 77 78 79 82 83 ew84 85 ew86 e88 97 99
US: 4 6N 9W 11E 11W 13 15 19W 21 44 46 48 58 72 92 113 117 123 130 158 163 176 178 192 206 209 211 219 220 221 222 258 264 276 290 311 319 322 340 360 378 401 ew422 501 521 522 601 701
PriSystems: VA, DE

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #412 on: October 11, 2017, 10:51:07 PM »

Virginia tried to get an eastern shore interstate in 1945, 1960, and studied it again in 2006.
Did they "try" or did they just study it?  1960 was before the construction of the CBBT, so the apparent issue there is 17 miles of open sea that the Interstate would have to cross, and nobody had ever before built a crossing of anywhere near that length over open sea.
Tried it in both 1945 and 1960.  See my I-99 page which has links to the CTB Minutes that said so...
http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/i099.htm

I see both cases said it was dependent on including MD and DE in the scheme.

The 1945 page calls them Interregional Highways, what they were called at the time.  I have a copy of the national report, _Interregional Highways, Report of the National Interregional Highway Committee_, 1944, and at that point they had not solidified on a 4-lane freeway design, 2-lane highway segments were one of the options, and they did not specifically require that the right-of-way had to be limited access.  Nothing was said about a Bay crossing.  The Bay ferry was in operation, from the 1930s to 1964.

The 1960 page did call for an Interstate Highway, and at that time in nearly every case it would have a 4-lane freeway design.  It also mentions that the Bay crossing was approved and about to be built.

We have to keep in mind that US-13 south of Dover was a 2-lane highway then with no town bypasses.  Its development into a 4-lane divided highway with town bypasses in the 1960s to 1970, changed the equation; while the former may logically warrant bypassing with a new 4-lane highway thruout, the latter is a very capable major interregional highway to where there are not nearly the level of warrants, if any, to bypass -that- highway with a new 4-lane highway thruout.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 07:06:52 AM by Beltway »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #413 on: October 12, 2017, 02:32:24 AM »

<< Delmarva north-south corridor >>

If you want to discuss it, how about doing it in the Fictional Highways group. 
That is a good place for highway proposals that are not in STIPs or in 20-year Long Range Plans.

Fully agree -- appropriate place for any such speculation.  Might just start a thread soon; got a couple of ideas.  Stay tuned! 
Logged

fillup420

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 78
  • Location: Boone, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:38:04 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #414 on: October 12, 2017, 12:25:35 PM »

Could someone explain to me what the real purpose of I-87 would be? All I see is just the road number changing, and several rather useless construction projects taking place. Whats the real benefit of having “I-87” instead of “US 64 to US 17”? It just feels like a waste of time, money, and effort to me.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1025
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 07:20:12 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #415 on: October 12, 2017, 02:53:16 PM »

Could someone explain to me what the real purpose of I-87 would be?

The official purpose? To create an interstate connection between Raleigh and Norfolk.

The real purpose? To give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia.

While US-64 and US-17 are adequate as they are now, eastern NC wants the I-shield for marketing purposes when trying to lure businesses. They believe that advertising that they have an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast gives them a recruiting advantage that they didn't have before.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #416 on: October 12, 2017, 03:16:48 PM »

Could someone explain to me what the real purpose of I-87 would be? All I see is just the road number changing, and several rather useless construction projects taking place. Whats the real benefit of having “I-87” instead of “US 64 to US 17”? It just feels like a waste of time, money, and effort to me.

No meaningful purpose, as I have pointed out thru many of my posts.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #417 on: October 12, 2017, 05:14:09 PM »

Could someone explain to me what the real purpose of I-87 would be? All I see is just the road number changing, and several rather useless construction projects taking place. Whats the real benefit of having “I-87” instead of “US 64 to US 17”? It just feels like a waste of time, money, and effort to me.

No meaningful purpose, as I have pointed out thru many of my posts.
The official purpose? To create an interstate connection between Raleigh and Norfolk.

The real purpose? To give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia.

While US-64 and US-17 are adequate as they are now, eastern NC wants the I-shield for marketing purposes when trying to lure businesses. They believe that advertising that they have an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast gives them a recruiting advantage that they didn't have before.

Now that we're back on subject -- the I-87 corridor (the numbering process still gives me the creeps!) is just one of many corridors projected to connect inland areas of the Southern Seaboard to the various port areas along the coast; I-42 to the south being another.  And any impetus to reroute I-74 (or a 3di spur) right into Wilmington is also part of this equation.  Prompting this flurry of activity is one event:  Panamax; i.e., the expansion of the Panama Canal to allow large freighters to transport goods from Asia directly to U.S. Gulf and East Coast ports.  Due to be fully operational by about 2021, what it does is eliminate the "land bridge" across the western and central states and dominated by BNSF and UP with their long-distance container service.  Now the shipping lines can quote single rates from origin to destination and reap more profits for themselves (goods destined for the western half of the country will still require the services of the major western railroads).  Even the eastern major rail lines (NS, CSX) are beefing up their lines and establishing hubs (CSX is doing so in Rocky Mount, NC) for distribution of their share of the inbound container traffic.  However, about a third of containers coming in are bound directly for trucks for shipment to warehouses not situated along the major rail lines, or represent a small shipment (1 or 2 containers) more suited for truck transport -- and thus the push for increasingly efficient road egress from the ports to the locations of these distribution facilities.  Much of the commercial development in eastern NC is geared toward this sort of activity, particularly in the region bounded by the I-42 corridor on the south and the I-87 corridor on the north and bisected by the nascent I-587.  From all appearances, this neck of the woods is gearing up to become "warehouse central" for the Southern Seaboard.  Securing effective egress means is Job #1; a handy corridor with no stops between the port and the warehouse is considered not only optimal but necessary to handle the expected volume of traffic in the briefest amount of time.  Thus, I-87 and, in time, I-42.  Whoever decided to extend I-40 down to Wilmington was a bit prescient; the port authority there has been dredging out the Cape Fear River to handle triple the present volume of inbound traffic.  If & when the Interstate-grade corridor along US 74 is completed (and a similar-grade Charlotte connection is made), that port will also likely find favor for its multiple egress points.

The very active Interstate addition/expansion concept in NC has one thing as its goal:  to attract increasingly more business to the state, particularly in areas like East Carolina, which have received relatively short shrift in the past few decades vis-ŕ-vis other in-state locales such as the Research Triangle, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, and greater Charlotte.  The eastern half of the state just wants its piece of the pie; and being a major regional distribution hub -- and recognized as such -- is seen as a feasible way to achieve that.  All those Interstate corridors, 87 included, are merely means to that end.  Whether the Panamax boom pans out in the long term remains to be seen -- but NC is doubling down on that prospect.       
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #418 on: October 12, 2017, 05:35:51 PM »

However, about a third of containers coming in are bound directly for trucks for shipment to warehouses not situated along the major rail lines, or represent a small shipment (1 or 2 containers) more suited for truck transport -- and thus the push for increasingly efficient road egress from the ports to the locations of these distribution facilities.       

Warrants for a new highway need to be for multiple purposes, not just for better access for trucks.  Say if this highway carries 10,000 AADT with 20% large trucks, that is only 2,000 trucks per day.  That is not sufficient warrants to spend $25-30 million per mile or several billion dollars for a new Interstate highway.  The state would be smarter to better educate the public and the business community about the value of a 4-lane interregional highway such as already exists, that it can easily and efficiently carry that much truck traffic and a lot more.  There really are no other major warrants for this highway.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #419 on: October 13, 2017, 12:01:47 PM »

However, about a third of containers coming in are bound directly for trucks for shipment to warehouses not situated along the major rail lines, or represent a small shipment (1 or 2 containers) more suited for truck transport -- and thus the push for increasingly efficient road egress from the ports to the locations of these distribution facilities.       

Warrants for a new highway need to be for multiple purposes, not just for better access for trucks.  Say if this highway carries 10,000 AADT with 20% large trucks, that is only 2,000 trucks per day.  That is not sufficient warrants to spend $25-30 million per mile or several billion dollars for a new Interstate highway.  The state would be smarter to better educate the public and the business community about the value of a 4-lane interregional highway such as already exists, that it can easily and efficiently carry that much truck traffic and a lot more.  There really are no other major warrants for this highway.

NC rule:  We don't need no stinking warrants!!!  Within NC, I-87 is functionally a fait accompli; the Interstate designation in 2016 and the strong local backing will carry the day.  NE NC interests want a Hampton Roads-serving 2di rambling through their midst, and NCDOT is willing to back their play; it fits right into the state wheelhouse.  VDOT can hem and haw all they want, but in 15 years or so they'll have yet another Interstate lapping at their door dropping off extra traffic onto US 17.  The NC locals don't want to be "educated" about how they should make do with what they've got -- the plain fact that their congressional delegation got HPC 13 "Interstate-ized" last year attests to their resolve to maximally develop that corridor.  Remember -- there's no hard & fast criteria or checklists regarding rationales for deploying Interstate corridors, only vague guidelines; the only criteria that's considered these days are the physical standards of the facility itself.  As I've stated on more than one occasion, it's become a political process, with victory going to the most persistent.  Occasionally that process yields a corridor that's fully rational and needed (I-22, I-49), but occasionally some questionable ones slide through (I-41, I-14, etc.); such is the nature of a politicized arena.  Barring a sea change in the process situations such as this are what we observers will be witnessing for the foreseeable future; we can only hope that the final results prove useful in the long haul.   

Having said that -- AFAIK, the only outlay that's been undertaken (besides a few miles of I-87 signage east of Raleigh) has been studies of just how to effect corridor development along US 17 in several of the substandard locales.  If I were a VA resident (who happens to reside in the state capital!) with a strong opinion regarding the inappropriateness of the HPC 13/I-87 corridor, I'd be getting my ass over to VDOT and/or the state legislature with a viable rationale for providing an alternative to that corridor before NC gets too far along with the upgrade process to stop.  Of course, that alternative is US 58 east of I-85.  Cite the fact that most of the ROW is in place and relatively ready for upgrade, and, if possible, replicate NC interests' position regarding the commercial benefits of such a routing.  And, if necessary, get really parochial about it -- frame it as a battle between NC self-interest and VA's ability to supply a much better alternative.  The only way to stop a rural NC interstate-development process is to provide the proverbial better mousetrap.  And if US 58 is that mousetrap, someone needs to advocate for that prospect before shovels are turned on the unbuilt I-87 segments.     
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #420 on: October 13, 2017, 12:49:47 PM »

Warrants for a new highway need to be for multiple purposes, not just for better access for trucks.  Say if this highway carries 10,000 AADT with 20% large trucks, that is only 2,000 trucks per day.  That is not sufficient warrants to spend $25-30 million per mile or several billion dollars for a new Interstate highway.  The state would be smarter to better educate the public and the business community about the value of a 4-lane interregional highway such as already exists, that it can easily and efficiently carry that much truck traffic and a lot more.  There really are no other major warrants for this highway.
NC rule:  We don't need no stinking warrants!!!  Within NC, I-87 is functionally a fait accompli; the Interstate designation in 2016 and the strong local backing will carry the day.  NE NC interests want a Hampton Roads-serving 2di rambling through their midst, and NCDOT is willing to back their play; it fits right into the state wheelhouse.  VDOT can hem and haw all they want, but in 15 years or so they'll have yet another Interstate lapping at their door dropping off extra traffic onto US 17.  The NC locals don't want to be "educated" about how they should make do with what they've got -- the plain fact that their congressional delegation got HPC 13 "Interstate-ized" last year attests to their resolve to maximally develop that corridor.  Remember -- there's no hard & fast criteria or checklists regarding rationales for deploying Interstate corridors, only vague guidelines; the only criteria that's considered these days are the physical standards of the facility itself.  As I've stated on more than one occasion, it's become a political process, with victory going to the most persistent.  Occasionally that process yields a corridor that's fully rational and needed (I-22, I-49), but occasionally some questionable ones slide through (I-41, I-14, etc.); such is the nature of a politicized arena.  Barring a sea change in the process situations such as this are what we observers will be witnessing for the foreseeable future; we can only hope that the final results prove useful in the long haul.   
Having said that -- AFAIK, the only outlay that's been undertaken (besides a few miles of I-87 signage east of Raleigh) has been studies of just how to effect corridor development along US 17 in several of the substandard locales.  If I were a VA resident (who happens to reside in the state capital!) with a strong opinion regarding the inappropriateness of the HPC 13/I-87 corridor, I'd be getting my ass over to VDOT and/or the state legislature with a viable rationale for providing an alternative to that corridor before NC gets too far along with the upgrade process to stop.  Of course, that alternative is US 58 east of I-85.  Cite the fact that most of the ROW is in place and relatively ready for upgrade, and, if possible, replicate NC interests' position regarding the commercial benefits of such a routing.  And, if necessary, get really parochial about it -- frame it as a battle between NC self-interest and VA's ability to supply a much better alternative.  The only way to stop a rural NC interstate-development process is to provide the proverbial better mousetrap.  And if US 58 is that mousetrap, someone needs to advocate for that prospect before shovels are turned on the unbuilt I-87 segments.     

"NC rule:  We don't need no stinking warrants!!!"

If that is how they really feel, and they want to try to armtwist other states into going along with their schemes, then IMHO they can pound sand!

"VDOT can hem and haw all they want, but in 15 years or so they'll have yet another Interstate lapping at their door dropping off extra traffic onto US 17."

I don't think so.  Timewise probably much longer than that if NCDOT pushes ahead with this, and I don't see much additional traffic being generated by this NC highway, given the low population and low business development in that part of NC.  It's not positioned to handle beach traffic.  At the border the US-17 AADT is 12,000 with 7% large trucks, and those are the figures for the whole expressway-grade segment up to VA-165 Cedar Road.  Those are Rural Arterial Highway warrants, not Interstate Highway warrants, particularly with the low truck percentage.

VDOT has many much higher expensive priorities (Interstate, arterial, urban and secondary projects, and of course HR crossings) than upgrading a highway segment that won't warrant a freeway for several decades if at all.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 01:01:09 PM by Beltway »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #421 on: October 13, 2017, 05:29:37 PM »

It seems like one of the NC goals with I-87 is to potentially increase the level, and hence the percentage, of truck traffic on this corridor.  Obviously, the whole thing is a calculated gamble that the corridor will itself induce very high levels of commercial growth, particularly along or near the US 64 segment once the levels of activity at the various Hampton Roads ports increases due to Panamax.  Couple this with the fact that there's already 97 miles of freeway mileage along the E-W portion of the corridor, either already Interstate grade or upgradeable to such, and you've got a recipe for this particular iteration of "NC Interstate Fever".  No cure; the ailment will just run its course.  The only thing that could derail I-87 is a very drawn-out development schedule that would allow other projects, such as I-42, the in-progress freeway corridor along US 74 between I-26 and I-85, or focus on completing most of I-73/74, to steal the limelight away from 87.  If I-87 isn't competed within NC by 2036-37, it's more than likely that whatever remains to be done will be "back-burnered" at that time; the impetus will have long dissipated.     
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1438
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #422 on: October 13, 2017, 05:54:04 PM »

It seems like one of the NC goals with I-87 is to potentially increase the level, and hence the percentage, of truck traffic on this corridor.  Obviously, the whole thing is a calculated gamble that the corridor will itself induce very high levels of commercial growth, particularly along or near the US 64 segment once the levels of activity at the various Hampton Roads ports increases due to Panamax.  Couple this with the fact that there's already 97 miles of freeway mileage along the E-W portion of the corridor, either already Interstate grade or upgradeable to such, and you've got a recipe for this particular iteration of "NC Interstate Fever".  No cure; the ailment will just run its course.  The only thing that could derail I-87 is a very drawn-out development schedule that would allow other projects, such as I-42, the in-progress freeway corridor along US 74 between I-26 and I-85, or focus on completing most of I-73/74, to steal the limelight away from 87.  If I-87 isn't competed within NC by 2036-37, it's more than likely that whatever remains to be done will be "back-burnered" at that time; the impetus will have long dissipated.     

I really don't think it would induce high levels of commercial growth, I think that is a very questionable assumption.  I count at least 11 east coast ports that are working to attract Panamax marine traffic, including one in N.C., Wilmington.  These ports are deepening their channels.  Savannah and Brunswick and Charleston recently built very high clearance harbor bridges, partly for that reason.  So the Panamax traffic may be well distributed along the east coast from Miami to Boston.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 06:01:40 PM by Beltway »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #423 on: October 14, 2017, 01:20:56 AM »

Exactly!!!  NC has two ports that have been dredged or are in the process of being dredged to accommodate the largest container vessels -- Wilmington and Morehead City.  The first features ample rail and Interstate service, which may be enhanced when and if I-74 or a child route extends from the west; the second is the basic raison d'etre for I-42.  But they're relatively new ports without long-term pedigree; Wilmington exports more than it imports (export tobacco accounts for much of that), and Morehead is, to most overseas corporations, an unknown factor as of yet.  It is more than likely that the "Big Three" of southern seaboard ports: Norfolk, Charleston, and Savannah -- will split the lion's share of inbound traffic, as they are established facilities with a proven track record.  In time, the NC ports will get their share (particularly if they engage in competition re pricing), but for the foreseeable future, it's likely that overseas shippers will prefer the known quantity.  Thus northeast NC, which wishes to recast itself as a major national distribution hub, has elected to enhance the corridor between the nearest established port facility and themselves.  Also, it's widely understood that the presence of an Interstate trunk is a benchmark necessity for regions to attract warehouse/distribution facilities of overseas corporations.  Thus with I-87 the eastern region of NC is simply hedging its bets -- by providing a maximally efficient road corridor to a port with ample capacity plus a proven record (Norfolk), that region is demonstrating that it's up to the task of functioning as a commercial hub.  To the interests in that region, it's just good business! 
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1025
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 07:20:12 AM
Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
« Reply #424 on: October 14, 2017, 06:09:00 AM »

Honestly, I don't have a problem with I-87 (nor I-587) but by the same token, Scott is right in that US-64 and US-17 are fine for at least the next 20 years and that money is better spent elsewhere in the here and now.

I-42/US-70 and I-795/US-117 are the corridors that need to be top priority in eastern NC right now, IMO.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.