AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Southeast => Topic started by: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM

Title: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 14, 2016, 09:51:00 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.

As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs.  I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange.  As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 10:04:10 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.

As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs.  I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange.  As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.

Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on July 15, 2016, 11:23:11 AM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.

As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs.  I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange.  As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.


Do you have the link to the Southeast Roads on Facebook, or what is the name of the group so I can look it up?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on July 15, 2016, 01:30:51 PM
That's the name of the group.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on July 15, 2016, 01:42:49 PM
That's the name of the group.


Found it. Thank you, froggie.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Thing 342 on July 15, 2016, 04:41:34 PM
While I don't think I-87 will ever come to VA, I thought I'd post this here since it's an improvement to the proposed corridor:
I drove through the construction site for the US-17 / Dominion Blvd freeway upgrade on my way home from work yesterday and took a few photos, heading northbound:

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julyf.png)
Eaglet Pkwy to Scenic Pkwy: Asphalt for the future NB lanes has recently been laid down, while traffic still uses the original roadbed. Some guardrails have been installed, but overall not much progress. This will likely be the last section to be completed.

Scenic Pkwy to VA-165: Traffic shifts over to the new roadbed just past past Scenic Pkwy while the old set is rehabbed. This section seems close to completion, with the SB lanes sporting what appeared to be a decently driveable surface.

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julya.png)
VA-165 Interchange: The future northbound half is complete, with SB traffic using the new bridge while NB traffic is forced to use the (fairly short) exit ramps. The southbound portion looks close to being done, with some missing guard rails and some scaffolding around the bridge.

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julyb.png)
Veterans' Bridge: NB half completed and open to traffic. SB half stretches about 85% of the way across the river, with a gap in the middle. This portion also seems like it will take awhile to complete. The cameras for the toll gantry have been installed, but are not operational. You also have this cramped BGS with distances put in exit tabs, which is a bit weird. (It also has a twin heading southbound).

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julyc.png)
Veterans' Bridge to VA-166: Largely an extension of the bridge. SB lanes are completed, won't be open until bridge is finished. VA-190 absent from this BGS for whatever reason.

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julyd.png)
VA-166 Interchange: Completed, with both bridges open to traffic, yet restricted to only one lane for some reason.

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julye.png)
VA-166 to VA-190: Both sets of lanes are complete, yet with a 35 mph speed limit and the southbound set restricted to 1 lane for some reason.

VA-190 interchange: Lots of work going on here. Mainline bridges are complete, but likely not open due to the unfinished state of the ramp approaches.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 15, 2016, 06:04:58 PM
Thanks for the pics! Looks like it's coming along pretty good. I agree that it's unlikely I-87 will ever leave NC since VA (except for Hampton Roads) isn't supporting it like NC is. However, VA does have one piece of what could be I-87 already finished should they ever decide to use it to add to the corridor: I-464.

When is the US-17/Dominion Blvd project supposed to be finished by?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Thing 342 on July 15, 2016, 07:09:17 PM
Thanks for the pics! Looks like it's coming along pretty good. I agree that it's unlikely I-87 will ever leave NC since VA (except for Hampton Roads) isn't supporting it like NC is. However, VA does have one piece of what could be I-87 already finished should they ever decide to use it to add to the corridor: I-464.

When is the US-17/Dominion Blvd project supposed to be finished by?
The portion north of Grassfield Pkwy is running ahead of schedule and will be finished by the end of the year, according to the project site (the official date is April 2017). The portion south of there is a separate project and has no listed completion date, but I'd imagine that it'll be completed by this time next year at the very latest.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on July 16, 2016, 12:58:00 PM
As I did with I-42, I've created a preliminary I-87 NC exit list with milepost and exit information for current freeway sections of the corridor gathered from Wikipedia entries and traveling the corridor via GSV. The list can be accessed at:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i87exits.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i87exits.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 16, 2016, 02:59:34 PM
As I did with I-42, I've created a preliminary I-87 NC exit list with milepost and exit information for current freeway sections of the corridor gathered from Wikipedia entries and traveling the corridor via GSV. The list can be accessed at:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i87exits.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i87exits.html)

Neat!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on July 16, 2016, 05:10:59 PM
Some of you have been wondering if I-440 will be decommissioned when I-87 routing is complete... I have been too, but then I realized that I do not think they are going to decommission I-440 because it does not make sense to end I-440 at I-87 2 miles away from I-40 interchange.

Here is the exit numbers for I-440 from I-40 to future I-87:

Exit 16- I-40
Exit 15- Poole Rd.
Exit 14- I-495/US 64/US 264 East (future I-87 North)

As you see, I-87 meets I-440 2 miles from I-40 interchange, I predict that I-440 will stay, which means I-87 will multiplex with I-440 and then both routes will end at I-40.  Similar multiplexes that end at or close to the parent route:

1. I-26/I-240 in Asheville, I-26 meets I-240 4 miles north of I-40 interchange, and runs with it until the western I-40 interchange, and I-240 ends (and begins) there while I-26 continues past the interchange.  (I-240 isn't going to be decommissioned)

2. I-73/I-840 in Greensboro. I-73 meets I-840 at Exit 3 (I-840's exit number) and both routes run down to western I-40 interchange, while I-840 ends there, I-73 continues past of the interchange.

3. I-785/I-840 in Greensboro (future), I-785 meets I-840 at Exit 14 (future exit) around 7 miles from eastern I-40 interchange and both routes run down to I-40/I-85/Bus. 85 interchange. Both routes end there.

4. I-41/I-43/I-894 in Wisconsin. I-894 ends at I-94 interchange in both termini, while I-41 and I-43 continues past the interchange.


So that is why I don't think NCDOT will decommission I-440 (it won't make any sense). They will just pair it with I-87 and have both routes end at I-40 eastern interchange.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:56:30 AM
Some of you have been wondering if I-440 will be decommissioned when I-87 routing is complete... I have been too, but then I realized that I do not think they are going to decommission I-440 because it does not make sense to end I-440 at I-87 2 miles away from I-40 interchange.

Here is the exit numbers for I-440 from I-40 to future I-87:

Exit 16- I-40
Exit 15- Poole Rd.
Exit 14- I-495/US 64/US 264 East (future I-87 North)

As you see, I-87 meets I-440 2 miles from I-40 interchange, I predict that I-440 will stay, which means I-87 will multiplex with I-440 and then both routes will end at I-40.  Similar multiplexes that end at or close to the parent route:

1. I-26/I-240 in Asheville, I-26 meets I-240 4 miles north of I-40 interchange, and runs with it until the western I-40 interchange, and I-240 ends (and begins) there while I-26 continues past the interchange.  (I-240 isn't going to be decommissioned)

2. I-73/I-840 in Greensboro. I-73 meets I-840 at Exit 3 (I-840's exit number) and both routes run down to western I-40 interchange, while I-840 ends there, I-73 continues past of the interchange.

3. I-785/I-840 in Greensboro (future), I-785 meets I-840 at Exit 14 (future exit) around 7 miles from eastern I-40 interchange and both routes run down to I-40/I-85/Bus. 85 interchange. Both routes end there.

4. I-41/I-43/I-894 in Wisconsin. I-894 ends at I-94 interchange in both termini, while I-41 and I-43 continues past the interchange.


So that is why I don't think NCDOT will decommission I-440 (it won't make any sense). They will just pair it with I-87 and have both routes end at I-40 eastern interchange.
They may do so. My major reason for arguing for a I-440 truncation has to do with the East-West direction for that route and that one has to initially head east on I-440 West when leaving I-40, and that a north direction may lessen any confusion that may cause.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 17, 2016, 05:36:35 AM
Some of you have been wondering if I-440 will be decommissioned when I-87 routing is complete... I have been too, but then I realized that I do not think they are going to decommission I-440 because it does not make sense to end I-440 at I-87 2 miles away from I-40 interchange.

Here is the exit numbers for I-440 from I-40 to future I-87:

Exit 16- I-40
Exit 15- Poole Rd.
Exit 14- I-495/US 64/US 264 East (future I-87 North)

As you see, I-87 meets I-440 2 miles from I-40 interchange, I predict that I-440 will stay, which means I-87 will multiplex with I-440 and then both routes will end at I-40.  Similar multiplexes that end at or close to the parent route:

1. I-26/I-240 in Asheville, I-26 meets I-240 4 miles north of I-40 interchange, and runs with it until the western I-40 interchange, and I-240 ends (and begins) there while I-26 continues past the interchange.  (I-240 isn't going to be decommissioned)

2. I-73/I-840 in Greensboro. I-73 meets I-840 at Exit 3 (I-840's exit number) and both routes run down to western I-40 interchange, while I-840 ends there, I-73 continues past of the interchange.

3. I-785/I-840 in Greensboro (future), I-785 meets I-840 at Exit 14 (future exit) around 7 miles from eastern I-40 interchange and both routes run down to I-40/I-85/Bus. 85 interchange. Both routes end there.

4. I-41/I-43/I-894 in Wisconsin. I-894 ends at I-94 interchange in both termini, while I-41 and I-43 continues past the interchange.


So that is why I don't think NCDOT will decommission I-440 (it won't make any sense). They will just pair it with I-87 and have both routes end at I-40 eastern interchange.
They may do so. My major reason for arguing for a I-440 truncation has to do with the East-West direction for that route and that one has to initially head east on I-440 West when leaving I-40, and that a north direction may lessen any confusion that may cause.

I agree. I don't think NCDOT would've asked AASHTO to have I-87 follow I-440 if they didn't intend on truncating I-440. It was even mentioned in their email response to froggie that he posted in the I-36/I-89 thread.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17910.msg2143874#msg2143874 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17910.msg2143874#msg2143874)

Quote
We see opportunities to reduce the length of I-440 and possibly diminish some confusion on the 440 loop.  We have not currently made this decision, but are considering the various alternatives.

I think a truncation of I-440 is all but certain.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 17, 2016, 10:51:02 AM
It would be similar to I-26/I-240 in Asheville and I-73/I-840 in Greensboro, so I doubt they would decommission a small section of I-440.  Also the fact that filthy casuals seem to understand that even digit numbers tend to loop back to the mainline.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 17, 2016, 11:40:29 AM
It would be similar to I-26/I-240 in Asheville and I-73/I-840 in Greensboro, so I doubt they would decommission a small section of I-440.  Also the fact that filthy casuals seem to understand that even digit numbers tend to loop back to the mainline.

It's not so much a numbering issue as it is a directional issue. I-440 is signed West when it goes east between I-40 and the Knightdale Bypass before finally turning west. I-240 and I-840 don't have that problem because those two roads don't have a section that runs the complete opposite of what direction it's signed as. That's why there's no issue with I-240 and I-840.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 17, 2016, 01:02:39 PM
It would be similar to I-26/I-240 in Asheville and I-73/I-840 in Greensboro, so I doubt they would decommission a small section of I-440.  Also the fact that filthy casuals seem to understand that even digit numbers tend to loop back to the mainline.
It's not so much a numbering issue as it is a directional issue. I-440 is signed West when it goes east between I-40 and the Knightdale Bypass before finally turning west. I-240 and I-840 don't have that problem because those two roads don't have a section that runs the complete opposite of what direction it's signed as. That's why there's no issue with I-240 and I-840.

People are not confused now with I-440 West/US 64 East, so I don't see the issue.  We also have interesting concurrences like I-73 North/I-85 South/US 421 North in Greensboro, again doubt its an issue.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on July 17, 2016, 01:54:28 PM
Some of you have been wondering if I-440 will be decommissioned when I-87 routing is complete... I have been too, but then I realized that I do not think they are going to decommission I-440 because it does not make sense to end I-440 at I-87 2 miles away from I-40 interchange.

Here is the exit numbers for I-440 from I-40 to future I-87:

Exit 16- I-40
Exit 15- Poole Rd.
Exit 14- I-495/US 64/US 264 East (future I-87 North)

As you see, I-87 meets I-440 2 miles from I-40 interchange, I predict that I-440 will stay, which means I-87 will multiplex with I-440 and then both routes will end at I-40.  Similar multiplexes that end at or close to the parent route:

1. I-26/I-240 in Asheville, I-26 meets I-240 4 miles north of I-40 interchange, and runs with it until the western I-40 interchange, and I-240 ends (and begins) there while I-26 continues past the interchange.  (I-240 isn't going to be decommissioned)

2. I-73/I-840 in Greensboro. I-73 meets I-840 at Exit 3 (I-840's exit number) and both routes run down to western I-40 interchange, while I-840 ends there, I-73 continues past of the interchange.

3. I-785/I-840 in Greensboro (future), I-785 meets I-840 at Exit 14 (future exit) around 7 miles from eastern I-40 interchange and both routes run down to I-40/I-85/Bus. 85 interchange. Both routes end there.

4. I-41/I-43/I-894 in Wisconsin. I-894 ends at I-94 interchange in both termini, while I-41 and I-43 continues past the interchange.


So that is why I don't think NCDOT will decommission I-440 (it won't make any sense). They will just pair it with I-87 and have both routes end at I-40 eastern interchange.
They may do so. My major reason for arguing for a I-440 truncation has to do with the East-West direction for that route and that one has to initially head east on I-440 West when leaving I-40, and that a north direction may lessen any confusion that may cause.

Yeah, i know I-440's routing in this area is odd, but you're right, they may do so. We will see when they makes a decision. :-)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 17, 2016, 03:50:51 PM
It would be similar to I-26/I-240 in Asheville and I-73/I-840 in Greensboro, so I doubt they would decommission a small section of I-440.  Also the fact that filthy casuals seem to understand that even digit numbers tend to loop back to the mainline.

It's not so much a numbering issue as it is a directional issue. I-440 is signed West when it goes east between I-40 and the Knightdale Bypass before finally turning west. I-240 and I-840 don't have that problem because those two roads don't have a section that runs the complete opposite of what direction it's signed as. That's why there's no issue with I-240 and I-840.
Originally I-440 was posted as Inner 440 in the clockwise direction and Outer 440 in the counter-clockwise direction. Somehow folks in Raleigh just couldn't figure this out and kept going the wrong way, so after years of the public grumbling about it NCDOT gave up and introduced the present East-West signing. This signing may confuse outsiders but it is not confusing to locals, because there is a clear concept locally of East Raleigh and West Raleigh. If you want to go to East Raleigh you take 440 East and if you want to go to West Raleigh you take 440 West. Simple.

I don't know if 440 will be truncated, but I don't think the decision will be based on these directional questions.

I would argue that it not be truncated for the following reason. If it's truncated, people westbound on I-40 will have to take I-87 North to find 440, and that probably requires providing a "TO 440" signing as well as "NORTH 87." If you have to do that, you haven't really accomplished anything with the truncation.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2016, 04:02:10 PM
IMO overlaps where a route ends during the overlap are pointless.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 17, 2016, 04:19:53 PM
IMO overlaps where a route ends during the overlap are pointless.

But they've always spoke well of you.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 17, 2016, 09:31:43 PM
While I don't think I-87 will ever come to VA, I thought I'd post this here since it's an improvement to the proposed corridor:
I drove through the construction site for the US-17 / Dominion Blvd freeway upgrade on my way home from work yesterday and took a few photos, heading northbound:

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julyf.png)
Eaglet Pkwy to Scenic Pkwy: Asphalt for the future NB lanes has recently been laid down, while traffic still uses the original roadbed. Some guardrails have been installed, but overall not much progress. This will likely be the last section to be completed.

Scenic Pkwy to VA-165: Traffic shifts over to the new roadbed just past past Scenic Pkwy while the old set is rehabbed. This section seems close to completion, with the SB lanes sporting what appeared to be a decently driveable surface.

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julya.png)
VA-165 Interchange: The future northbound half is complete, with SB traffic using the new bridge while NB traffic is forced to use the (fairly short) exit ramps. The southbound portion looks close to being done, with some missing guard rails and some scaffolding around the bridge.

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julyb.png)
Veterans' Bridge: NB half completed and open to traffic. SB half stretches about 85% of the way across the river, with a gap in the middle. This portion also seems like it will take awhile to complete. The cameras for the toll gantry have been installed, but are not operational. You also have this cramped BGS with distances put in exit tabs, which is a bit weird. (It also has a twin heading southbound).

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julyc.png)
Veterans' Bridge to VA-166: Largely an extension of the bridge. SB lanes are completed, won't be open until bridge is finished. VA-190 absent from this BGS for whatever reason.

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julyd.png)
VA-166 Interchange: Completed, with both bridges open to traffic, yet restricted to only one lane for some reason.

(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/us17_widening_2016/17julye.png)
VA-166 to VA-190: Both sets of lanes are complete, yet with a 35 mph speed limit and the southbound set restricted to 1 lane for some reason.

VA-190 interchange: Lots of work going on here. Mainline bridges are complete, but likely not open due to the unfinished state of the ramp approaches.

Great photos. Some of those are candidates for Signs with Design Errors, though, sheesh.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Henry on July 18, 2016, 10:46:34 AM
As I said, if there had been plans to connect this to New York (there isn't), the number would've made a lot more sense. But it looks like NC is stuck with another out-of-place number on a highway that will never meet its original incarnation (see I-74 in Cincinnati).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 05:27:10 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.

http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)

Quote
ROCKY MOUNT, N.C. — After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.

The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.

"The Carolina Connector will be a game-changer for our state’s economy, supporting North Carolina’s agriculture, ports and position as the Southeast’s No. 1 state for manufacturing jobs," Gov. Pat McCrory said in announcing the project.

Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.


DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.

"CSX is proud to bring this transformational project to eastern North Carolina which will provide cheaper, faster and more environmentally-friendly connections for North Carolina’s businesses and ports to domestic and international markets," CSX Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Ward said in a statement.

Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX’s main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.

Still, it wasn't CSX's preferred site.

The company announced plans in January to build the Carolina Connector near Selma. But that plan quickly fizzled when landowners protested the idea of being forced to sell their property, and county and state officials came out against the proposal.

In April, Four Oaks Mayor Linwood Parker pushed for the hub in his town as an economic driver. Again, opposition from local property owners quashed any potential deal.

Carolinas Gateway Partnership, a local economic development organization, controls nearly all of the land needed for the terminal in Rocky Mount.

EDIT: An update to the article gave the exact location of the CSX terminal.

Quote
The $270 million hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built across U.S. Highway 301 from North Carolina Wesleyan College in Rocky Mount.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 19, 2016, 06:30:45 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.

http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)

Quote
ROCKY MOUNT, N.C. — After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.

The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.

Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.

DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.

Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX’s main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.

It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 19, 2016, 07:01:23 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.

As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs.  I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange.  As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.

Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.

Here is a photo from two weeks ago of said sign posts.  They still sit empty today...but they're drinking Milk and before you know it....

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8796/28310865756_435a47d009.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47)Future I-87 Coming Soon (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 09:01:35 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.

As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs.  I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange.  As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.

Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.

Here is a photo from two weeks ago of said sign posts.  They still sit empty today...but they're drinking Milk and before you know it....

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8796/28310865756_435a47d009.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47)Future I-87 Coming Soon (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

Thanks, and yeah, I doubt those sign posts will be empty for much longer. I'm kinda surprised it still isn't signed, given how quick NCDOT put up Future I-42 signs along US-70. But I'm guessing Future I-87 will be up east of I-95 within a month.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 19, 2016, 09:08:23 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.

http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)

Quote
ROCKY MOUNT, N.C. — After months of discussion and debate, CSX announced Tuesday that it will build its massive Carolina Connector cargo terminal in Edgecombe County.

The hub, which is expected to open in 2020, will be built between Battleboro and College roads south of U.S. Highway 301 in Rocky Mount. Officials anticipate 300 permanent jobs at the site, as well as 250 to 300 construction jobs.

Cargo transfer hubs improve efficiency in distributing goods from manufacturers to retailers and consumers, officials said, and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways. Studies by the state Department of Transportation show warehouses and other facilities usually cluster around such hubs, and officials have projected the Carolina Connector could eventually spawn up to 13,000 related jobs statewide.

DOT plans to provide $110 million in improvements to rail lines and terminal infrastructure, while CSX will invest $160 million in the project. The company also qualifies for up to $4.3 million in rebates of employee withholding taxes under a Job Development Investment Grant if it meets annual hiring and investment targets in the coming years, as well as $7.8 million in state tax credits.

Officials said the company was attracted to the Rocky Mount site because of its proximity to CSX’s main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future Interstate 87 corridor from the Triangle to Norfolk, Va., and the planned Interstate 42 corridor from the Triangle to Morehead City.
According to WRAL's version of this story, NC beat out VA and SC for this facility.

It's a nice reminder that highways can/should be built for tomorrow's traffic as well as today's.

Agreed. However, I was surprised about VA. I wasn't even aware they were competing for it. No mention of it was ever made on the local news stations here. I already knew about SC. SC did their damndest to steal the CSX hub from NC once they caught wind of the NIMBY's in Johnston County raising hell.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on July 20, 2016, 08:51:19 AM
Quote
and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways.

You two must've missed this part of the article.  The intent of such facilities is to get more freight onto rail, not to add trucks onto highways.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 20, 2016, 09:52:56 AM
Quote
and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways.

You two must've missed this part of the article.  The intent of such facilities is to get more freight onto rail, not to add trucks onto highways.


A couple of quick things.  First Froggie is exactly right - this will take trucks off the highway - between RM and the ports along the coast.   Warehouses will cluster around this site. It'll be located just east of US 301 between current US 64 and NC 4.  Actually the recently opened four lane Betts Parkway terminates pretty much at the site.

Although it will take trucks off the road - it will be a key on loading and offloading site. So trucks will start or end journeys from Rocky Mount. This along with the interstate designations will be attractions for the area. At best it could accelerate upgrading 64 to Raleigh to standards but I don't see anything for Williamston to VA improved by this.

Who knows maybe improvements to 95 as well. It also I think along with the Virgina Atlantic Gateway project may help NC push to shift passenger rail along the 85 corridor as part of the SE high speed rail corridor.

Who knows - but this is great news for Rocky Mount that has been hit hard over the past few decades with various companies leaving town.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 20, 2016, 10:09:19 AM
Quote
and they also reduce truck traffic on state highways.

You two must've missed this part of the article.  The intent of such facilities is to get more freight onto rail, not to add trucks onto highways.


Although it will take trucks off the road - it will be a key on loading and offloading site. So trucks will start or end journeys from Rocky Mount. This along with the interstate designations will be attractions for the area. At best it could accelerate upgrading 64 to Raleigh to standards but I don't see anything for Williamston to VA improved by this.

You said it better than I could've. I didn't miss that article tidbit that froggie claims that I did. This was exactly what I was thinking. I agree that US-17 won't likely be affected by this. However, on a slightly (but brief) off-topic note, it may also accelerate I-795's extension from Goldsboro to I-40 since it would essentially be a direct route to the Port of Wilmington from Rocky Mount. I-42 is already well underway for most of it's corridor, so I don't see that changing.

BTW, if you're interested, here's an article giving full details in how Rocky Mount landed the CSX hub.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2016/07/20/Local-officials-craft-deal-to-bring-CSX-terminal-to-area.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2016/07/20/Local-officials-craft-deal-to-bring-CSX-terminal-to-area.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on July 20, 2016, 12:29:51 PM
If this is going to impact Future Interstates in the area at all, it would be west of I-95 towards Raleigh and the manufacturing hubs around central North Carolina.  It MIGHT accelerate I-795's extension to I-40, but I doubt this will pull much from either Wilmington or Moorhead City because those ports are hamstrung by shallower depths.  And it won't pull much from Hampton Roads because the main draw to/from there is either cross country or on already-existing Interstates and rail tracks that don't go to North Carolina**.


** - I'm aware of the CSX line that heads northeast from Weldon, NC to Franklin, VA, but that line A) needs some work and B) does not directly connect via CSX trackage to the Norfolk or Portsmouth terminals.  That's either Norfolk Southern or short line railroads that connect to the Southside terminals.  CSX only directly connects to the Newport News terminal, but from NC that would require trains to go to Richmond and loop 3/4 around the city to access the tracks.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 20, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
It MIGHT accelerate I-795's extension to I-40, but I doubt this will pull much from either Wilmington or Moorhead City because those ports are hamstrung by shallower depths.

Morehead City's port may be hampered, but I doubt the Port of Wilmington will be hampered for much longer. Wilmington's port just received their first post-Panamax container ship earlier this month, with the ability to handle even larger post-Panamax ships later this summer.

From July 5:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12709 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12709)

Quote
Wilmington, N.C. – Building upon Governor Pat McCrory’s efforts to increase trade and promote economic growth at our state ports, North Carolina officials welcomed the largest containership to visit the Port of Wilmington. The Hanjin Baltimore, measuring 984 feet in length and 140 feet in width, is the first of many post-Panamax vessels to be served at the recently updated container port in North Carolina.

"Our state ports are an important asset for creating jobs and connecting North Carolinians to opportunities around the world," said Governor McCrory. "This important milestone shows our commitment to supporting our ports and overall economy is paying off and keeping North Carolina globally competitive."

The expansion of the North Carolina ports is a key part of Governor McCrory’s 25-year Vision for North Carolina. That includes providing access for the Panamax vessels, expanding access to the ports inland by developing intermodal train service at the Port of Wilmington, and pursuing opportunities to develop intermodal facilities along the I-95 corridor to improve the movement of goods through North Carolina and along the East Coast.

“This is an important day for our Ports and for the State of North Carolina,” said Executive Director Paul J. Cozza. “We’ve been working diligently on modernizing our ports and to see our plans come to fruition by proving that the Port of Wilmington is big ship ready is a great feeling.”

Built in 2005 by Hyundai Heavy Industries, the Hanjin Baltimore has served various Far East trade lanes in its tenure. Holding 7,500 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), which are containers 20 feet long and eight feet tall, the vessel is approximately 63 percent larger than any ship that has ever visited the Port of Wilmington.

“This vessel not only signifies improving global trade but it also represents the future,” said Chief Commercial Officer Greg Fennell. “If there was ever a doubt that we could not accept a post-Panamax vessel, this ship puts that debate to rest.”

Recent infrastructure advancements allow North Carolina’s Ports to improve upon its operational efficiencies, to keep cargo moving and to remain congestion free. The Port of Wilmington will be prepared to handle even larger post-Panamax vessels, up to the 10,000 TEU class, by later this summer.

“This landmark event is the product of a North Carolina Ports infrastructure investment plan to meet shipping industry requirements,” said Tom Adams, Chairman of the Board of Directors. “With the expansion of the Panama Canal taking place last weekend, the Port of Wilmington is adding new cranes, an enhanced berth, a wider turning basin and will have further expansion in the future.”

North Carolina's Ports in Wilmington and Morehead City, plus inland terminals in Charlotte and Greensboro, link the state's consumers, businesses and industry to world markets, and serve as magnets to attract new business and industry while receiving no direct taxpayer subsidy. Port activities contribute statewide to 76,000 jobs and $700 million each year in state and local tax revenues.

(https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/Image.ashx?id=3712&orig=1)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 20, 2016, 03:22:39 PM
It MIGHT accelerate I-795's extension to I-40, but I doubt this will pull much from either Wilmington or Moorhead City because those ports are hamstrung by shallower depths.

Morehead City's port may be hampered, but I doubt the Port of Wilmington will be hampered for much longer. Wilmington's port just received their first post-Panamax container ship earlier this month, with the ability to handle even larger post-Panamax ships later this summer.

From July 5:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12709 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12709)

Quote
Wilmington, N.C. – Building upon Governor Pat McCrory’s efforts to increase trade and promote economic growth at our state ports, North Carolina officials welcomed the largest containership to visit the Port of Wilmington. The Hanjin Baltimore, measuring 984 feet in length and 140 feet in width, is the first of many post-Panamax vessels to be served at the recently updated container port in North Carolina.

"Our state ports are an important asset for creating jobs and connecting North Carolinians to opportunities around the world," said Governor McCrory. "This important milestone shows our commitment to supporting our ports and overall economy is paying off and keeping North Carolina globally competitive."

The expansion of the North Carolina ports is a key part of Governor McCrory’s 25-year Vision for North Carolina. That includes providing access for the Panamax vessels, expanding access to the ports inland by developing intermodal train service at the Port of Wilmington, and pursuing opportunities to develop intermodal facilities along the I-95 corridor to improve the movement of goods through North Carolina and along the East Coast.

“This is an important day for our Ports and for the State of North Carolina,” said Executive Director Paul J. Cozza. “We’ve been working diligently on modernizing our ports and to see our plans come to fruition by proving that the Port of Wilmington is big ship ready is a great feeling.”

Built in 2005 by Hyundai Heavy Industries, the Hanjin Baltimore has served various Far East trade lanes in its tenure. Holding 7,500 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), which are containers 20 feet long and eight feet tall, the vessel is approximately 63 percent larger than any ship that has ever visited the Port of Wilmington.

“This vessel not only signifies improving global trade but it also represents the future,” said Chief Commercial Officer Greg Fennell. “If there was ever a doubt that we could not accept a post-Panamax vessel, this ship puts that debate to rest.”

Recent infrastructure advancements allow North Carolina’s Ports to improve upon its operational efficiencies, to keep cargo moving and to remain congestion free. The Port of Wilmington will be prepared to handle even larger post-Panamax vessels, up to the 10,000 TEU class, by later this summer.

“This landmark event is the product of a North Carolina Ports infrastructure investment plan to meet shipping industry requirements,” said Tom Adams, Chairman of the Board of Directors. “With the expansion of the Panama Canal taking place last weekend, the Port of Wilmington is adding new cranes, an enhanced berth, a wider turning basin and will have further expansion in the future.”

North Carolina's Ports in Wilmington and Morehead City, plus inland terminals in Charlotte and Greensboro, link the state's consumers, businesses and industry to world markets, and serve as magnets to attract new business and industry while receiving no direct taxpayer subsidy. Port activities contribute statewide to 76,000 jobs and $700 million each year in state and local tax revenues.



Morehead City is an afterthought and isn't a factor.  Wilmington may have the capability but it can't currently handle a large volume as other ports. 

Check out these links to see how Wilmington compares to other ports and that Morehead really is a fishing dock compared to the others.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/bts_fact_sheets/october_2010/html/figure_03.html

 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/bts_fact_sheets/october_2010/html/figure_04.html

 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/bts_fact_sheets/october_2010/html/table_06.html

 

http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/southeast-ports-whats-on-the-horizon/

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 20, 2016, 04:53:20 PM
If Interstate 87 were to enter Virginia, the Highway 168/Interstate 464 corridor would be the route I'd choose for it, since most of that stretch is already built as a freeway/tollway combo.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 20, 2016, 07:05:00 PM
If Interstate 87 were to enter Virginia, the Highway 168/Interstate 464 corridor would be the route I'd choose for it, since most of that stretch is already built as a freeway/tollway combo.

Personally, in a perfect world, I would too. Problem is, a new terrain route would be needed to connect US-17 north of Elizabeth City to VA-168, which would be a non-starter due to the sensitive wetlands it would cross and the inevitable lawsuits that would incur if such a route had been chosen. It would cost more money than the trouble's worth, between construction costs and litigation costs. Upgrading US-17 is the only feasible option here.

However, I-464 could easily become part of I-87, which would make more sense ending at I-264 in Norfolk rather than I-64 in Chesapeake. Whether VDOT and/or the leaders in Hampton Roads will consider it is a different story. I'm not sure how much work, if any, would need to be done to the current I-64/I-264/US-17/VA-168 interchange in Chesapeake in order to extend I-87 over I-464. I've driven I-64 through Chesapeake multiple times since I have relatives living in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, but I didn't pay much attention to the interchange design.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Thing 342 on July 21, 2016, 02:39:03 PM
If Interstate 87 were to enter Virginia, the Highway 168/Interstate 464 corridor would be the route I'd choose for it, since most of that stretch is already built as a freeway/tollway combo.

Personally, in a perfect world, I would too. Problem is, a new terrain route would be needed to connect US-17 north of Elizabeth City to VA-168, which would be a non-starter due to the sensitive wetlands it would cross and the inevitable lawsuits that would incur if such a route had been chosen. It would cost more money than the trouble's worth, between construction costs and litigation costs. Upgrading US-17 is the only feasible option here.

However, I-464 could easily become part of I-87, which would make more sense ending at I-264 in Norfolk rather than I-64 in Chesapeake. Whether VDOT and/or the leaders in Hampton Roads will consider it is a different story. I'm not sure how much work, if any, would need to be done to the current I-64/I-264/US-17/VA-168 interchange in Chesapeake in order to extend I-87 over I-464. I've driven I-64 through Chesapeake multiple times since I have relatives living in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, but I didn't pay much attention to the interchange design.
That interchange is a mostly-standard cloverleaf, with C/D lanes headed WB (due east). It gets badly congested heading EB (due west) during rush hour due to weaving in the interchange and a bottleneck as one heads toward the High-Rise bridge.

The major problem with using the Chesapeake Expressway for I-87, as you alluded to is the fact that you would have to build a completely new route between South Mills and Moyock over sensitive wetland area, which, given NCDOT's relationship with environmental groups in the past, is likely a non-starter.

Furthermore, the VA-168 freeway is not up to interstate standards, and any interstate conversion would likely require major repairs to the bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway near Great Bridge.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 05, 2016, 11:11:48 AM
As I've mentioned in the I-795 and I-42 threads, I've been checking out NCDOT's preliminary 2018-2027 STIP page. Here are the projects listed for the I-87 corridor (US-64/US-17):

-Widen I-495/US-64 from 6 lanes to 8 lanes from I-440 to US-64 Business near Knightdale.

-Upgrade US-64 to interstate standards from Rolesville Road/Knightdale Bypass to the Martin County line just east of Bethel.

-Upgrade US-17 to interstate standards from US-64 in Williamston to the Virginia state line with the project broken up into phases.

That's it for the NC's part of I-87. I couldn't find anything from VDOT regarding US-17 in Hampton Roads other than the Dominion Boulevard project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 05, 2016, 11:50:27 AM
The 8 lanes on the Kdale Bypass I personally don't see as a top priority.  Upgrading east of exit 430 - yes.  I do believe that making 64/495/87 what have you six lanes from Rolesville Road to the 64/264 split in Zebulon is a necessity - considering eastern wake will continue to grow over the next decade plus.  (Since I live in and commute through eastern wake) I do have bias.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 05, 2016, 11:59:09 AM
The 8 lanes on the Kdale Bypass I personally don't see as a top priority.  Upgrading east of exit 430 - yes.  I do believe that making 64/495/87 what have you six lanes from Rolesville Road to the 64/264 split in Zebulon is a necessity - considering eastern wake will continue to grow over the next decade plus.  (Since I live in and commute through eastern wake) I do have bias.

I agree. I drove on the Knightdale Bypass last year and it seemed to flow just fine as a 6-lane highway. 8 lanes would be overkill, IMO. US-64 between the Knightdale Bypass and the split in Zebulon definitely needs 6-lanes. It got pretty congested on that stretch. Why they put 8-laning the Knightdale Bypass and not 6-laning the road between the bypass and the Zebulon split on the STIP is beyond me.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 07, 2016, 03:32:04 PM
NCDOT Secretary Nick Tennyson wrote an Op-Ed in The Virginian-Pilot regarding the future CSX Carolina Connector hub in Rocky Mount and I-87.

http://pilotonline.com/opinion/columnist/guest/nick-tennyson-project-will-better-connect-n-c-to-va/article_47c69601-4bcc-5e32-8951-77f4ea556b70.html (http://pilotonline.com/opinion/columnist/guest/nick-tennyson-project-will-better-connect-n-c-to-va/article_47c69601-4bcc-5e32-8951-77f4ea556b70.html)

Quote
PLANNING AND executing multi-faceted transportation infrastructure is not only crucial to easing congestion and improving reliability, but it also can foster economic growth and the creation of new jobs.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory recently announced a new transportation hub to be constructed in Rocky Mount. Known as the Carolina Connector, the terminal will position the state as a national leader in intermodal freight movement and promote job creation.

Economic studies indicate the new facility will create 1,500 jobs in North Carolina as a result of the terminal’s operations and support the creation of thousands of jobs throughout North Carolina and Virginia.

I was present for the historic news, which is one of the most important transportation and commerce initiatives ever announced for eastern North Carolina. It is also important for future commerce in southeastern Virginia.

Along with the future interstate it will link to, the hub is a central component of the governor’s 25-Year Vision for Transportation, and demonstrates the administration’s commitment to continued investment in infrastructure.

The growing need for seamless freight movement is critical in today’s global economy. North Carolina is now positioned to play a pivotal role in both receiving raw goods originating from around the world and in distributing products and produce to a global market.

The state-of-the-art terminal thus puts local businesses at a distinct advantage and gives the state significant leverage in attracting future opportunities.


Freight today moves in containers that can easily be transferred at central hubs like the Carolina Connector to other trains and trucks that will carry the cargo to its final destination.

Planning for future roads and rail lines to handle this kind of traffic is also under way.

The strategic location of the Carolina Connector is convenient to other transportation resources and has geographical advantages. It is in close proximity to CSX’s main north-south rail line, Interstate 95 and the future I-87 and I-42 corridors and is in a great position to serve Raleigh’s economic center.

The future I-87 designation for U.S. 64/17 is critical to the economic futures of both northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia because it will better connect Raleigh to Hampton Roads.

We are also preparing our state for future success through an overhaul of the state’s transportation funding formula. As in Virginia, transportation projects are now scored based on merit, not politics.

The Carolina Connector would not be possible without the new data-driven funding formula implemented in 2013, which qualified the project for $100 million in state funding for track improvements and connecting infrastructure at the new facility.

The Carolina Connector and future highway designations are prime examples of how the McCrory administration is successfully improving the future of travel and commerce in the Southeast.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2016, 04:56:45 PM
How long before the 495 shields between Interstate 440 and Interstate 540 disappear?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on August 08, 2016, 05:41:34 PM
How long before the 495 shields between Interstate 440 and Interstate 540 disappear?

When NCDOT requests AASHTO to decommission I-495 in favor of I-87.  It's a process.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 08, 2016, 05:53:17 PM
How long before the 495 shields between Interstate 440 and Interstate 540 disappear?

There's been no word on it, but I'm almost positive NCDOT will seek to decommission I-495/Future I-495 during AASHTO's next meeting. At the same time, they'll also likely ask for what's now signed as I-495 to become I-87.

Another possibility that might happen is that NCDOT could ask to decommission the small part of I-440 that I-87 is supposed to follow, between I-495 and I-40 in southeast Raleigh. I brought it up before, but others disagreed with me. I still think it'll happen, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No biggie.

AASHTO's deadline for accepting applications is
September 16. AASHTO's meeting is from November 12-15 in Boston.

http://route.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx)

http://www.aashtoannualmeeting.org/ (http://www.aashtoannualmeeting.org/)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 09, 2016, 05:18:35 PM
Does future 87 really need to duplex with 440 to reach 40? I think that would be unnecessary. Future 87 would hardly be the only two-digit Interstate Highway to terminate at a three-digit Interstate Highway.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 09, 2016, 06:27:58 PM
Does future 87 really need to duplex with 440 to reach 40? I think that would be unnecessary. Future 87 would hardly be the only two-digit Interstate Highway to terminate at a three-digit Interstate Highway.

According to an email response that froggie posted a while back, NCDOT saw an opportunity to eliminate what they consider to be a confusing part of the I-40/I-440 junction, where if you're coming in to southeast Raleigh on westbound I-40 approaching the I-40/I-440 junction, I-440 is signed "West" when it actually turns east, then north and west. That response is what leads me to believe that they will decommission that small bit of I-440 and have I-87 replace it, ending at I-40. If that wasn't NCDOT's intention, then they would've simply had I-87 ending at I-440, just like I-495 does now, IMO.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17910.msg2143874#msg2143874 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17910.msg2143874#msg2143874)

Quote
The Department will likely replace the 495 section and not continue it as aconcurrent route.  We see opportunities to reduce the length of I-440 and possibly diminish some confusion on the 440 loop.  We have not currently made this decision, but are considering the various alternatives.

If I'm right, I-87 won't be duplexed with that small bit of I-440. It would simply replace it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: RoadMaster09 on August 09, 2016, 10:12:43 PM
Honestly, I would make this two separate highways, with 87 only going from Norfolk to Williamston (then southward to Wilmington and beyond). The east-west US 64 section (extendable to Nags Head) I would have numbered as I-46 or I-48.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: OracleUsr on August 09, 2016, 11:07:29 PM
Speaking of US 64 in Wake and Nash Counties, I wonder if they'll correct the mathematical error on US 264 in Zebulon.  Here's what I mean:

US 64 at I-440 is exit 419, and that's also the western terminus of US 264.

The split in Zebulon is Exit 436, a difference of 17 miles.

The equivalent ramp from US 264 West to US 64 East is Exit 19...you're two off.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 10, 2016, 08:05:27 AM
Speaking of US 64 in Wake and Nash Counties, I wonder if they'll correct the mathematical error on US 264 in Zebulon.  Here's what I mean:

US 64 at I-440 is exit 419, and that's also the western terminus of US 264.

The split in Zebulon is Exit 436, a difference of 17 miles.

The equivalent ramp from US 264 West to US 64 East is Exit 19...you're two off.

I don't understand why US-264 doesn't just end in Zebulon in the first place. It seems pointless to have US-64/US-264 run concurrent between Zebulon and I-440. I understand why I-840/I-785 will be concurrent in Greensboro and why I-795 will be concurrent with an I-x87 near Wilson if NCDOT decides to upgrade US-264 like Greenville is wanting, but US-64/US-264? Nope, I don't get that one. It's common knowledge that US-64 goes to Raleigh, so I doubt there would be any problems if US-264 was truncated.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on August 10, 2016, 08:50:28 AM
Quote
I don't understand why US-264 doesn't just end in Zebulon in the first place.

It did before 1997.  I would hazard a guess that eastern NC interests (i.e. Wilson, Greenville, and/or Washington) wanted a single route number between them and Raleigh directly, and were successful in convincing NCDOT and AASHTO to follow suit.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 18, 2016, 12:49:15 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.

As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs.  I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange.  As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.

Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.

Here is a photo from two weeks ago of said sign posts.  They still sit empty today...but they're drinking Milk and before you know it....

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8796/28310865756_435a47d009.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47)Future I-87 Coming Soon (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

These poor sign posts going on two months without a sign.  The one on the left is starting to warp to the right.  It gets pretty lonely out there in the hot summer sun.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 18, 2016, 07:47:55 PM
I figure this thread is better suited for the Southeast forum since most of the route is in NC. Ok, let me kick this off with a question. Does anybody know if NCDOT has put up any "Future I-87" signs along US-64 and/or US-17? I realize that I-495/Future I-495 hasn't been officially decommissioned from US-64 yet, but I figured I'd ask since NCDOT seemingly jumped the gun and put up Future I-42 signs on US-70 without FHWA approval (unless it was quietly approved), so it wouldn't surprise me if NCDOT got ahead of themselves again. I'm not expecting any Future I-87 signs on US-17 in VA since VDOT never applied to AASHTO for it.

As discussed on southeast Roads in Facebook - wooden sign posts are up on US 64 east of Rocky mount but without signs.  I work in Rocky Mount and go past the planned future interstate 87 signs will be just east of the 95 interchange.  As of this morning they remain empty as they have for three weeks.

Thanks for the update. I don't have a Facebook account so that's why I was out of the loop.

Here is a photo from two weeks ago of said sign posts.  They still sit empty today...but they're drinking Milk and before you know it....

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8796/28310865756_435a47d009.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47)Future I-87 Coming Soon (https://flic.kr/p/K8JA47) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

These poor sign posts going on two months without a sign.  The one on the left is starting to warp to the right.  It gets pretty lonely out there in the hot summer sun.

That's surprising, given NCDOT's haste to put up Future I-42 signs on US-70. I'm starting to wonder if NCDOT is waiting to have I-495 canned before putting up Future I-87 signs, even though US-64 east of I-95 wasn't part of I-495. AASHTO's deadline for accepting applications is September 16, so we might find out soon.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: RoadMaster09 on August 18, 2016, 10:09:01 PM
Maybe there is consideration of withdrawing the I-87 request? Without the Hampton Roads connection (which would be better done with the whole US 17 corridor, and would be better designated as I-97 or I-99), an even number would be better. I'd just go with I-46 or I-48 here.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 18, 2016, 10:30:24 PM
Maybe there is consideration of withdrawing the I-87 request? Without the Hampton Roads connection (which would be better done with the whole US 17 corridor, and would be better designated as I-97 or I-99), an even number would be better. I'd just go with I-46 or I-48 here.

There's no chance of NCDOT withdrawing I-87. It's already approved by AASHTO and probably the FHWA by now. Back in 2012, NCDOT asked FHWA to designate the route as I-44, but it seems to have been turned down since I-495 came about a year later.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140517130607/http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140517130607/http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 20, 2016, 06:40:58 PM
I just came across an interesting (for me anyway, YMMV) article from 1992. It seems that the Raleigh-Norfolk interstate plan was being cooked up even back then and NCDOT and the HRMPO were leaning towards using US-13 rather than US-17.

http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-10-22/news/9210220164_1_new-route-new-road-study (http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-10-22/news/9210220164_1_new-route-new-road-study)

Quote
Plans for a Norfolk-to-Raleigh, N.C. interstate went nowhere Wednesday when a regional planning group took exception to the state's choice of Route 17 through Chesapeake for the path of part of the new road.

The Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization, an advisory group, voted to ask the state Department of Transportation to give the options more study and to consider Route 13 through Suffolk.

Officials from Suffolk and Chesapeake, both of which are represented on the planning group, have previously vied for the routes through their communities.

The planning organization's two Newport News representatives, City Councilman Joe S. Frank and City Manager Edgar E. Maroney, backed the call for further study.

Frank said after the meeting that he wanted to negotiate a compromise that might provide improved connections with the Peninsula.

Maroney said there were "some very severe environmental problems" with the Route 17 corridor.

In a letter to the group, VDOT Commissioner Ray D. Pethtel recently reiterated the department's support for Route 17 despite the planning group's previous objections.

Pethtel said the federal legislation that provided $47.8 million to study new construction and a major upgrading of existing highway designates Route 17 as part of the new route.

No construction money has been appropriated for the work. Even the cheapest version of the road would cost about $240 million, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has estimated. The price could climb to as much as $1 billion.

VDOT's Pethtel said in his letter that most of his department's study of the project has been concentrated on Route 17 and Route 104 between the North Carolina line and Interstate 464 in Chesapeake.

However, at North Carolina's request, VDOT also has included alternatives along Route 13 from the state line through Suffolk to Bowers Hill and then to Interstate 64, Pethtel said.

In both cases, I-464 would connect with downtown Norfolk, he said.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 04:58:20 PM
How many posters believe future Interstate 87 will ever enter Virginia? My guess is that it is a toss-up.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 22, 2016, 05:40:34 PM
I think I-87 in Virginia has a better chance then I-73 or I-74, but still as of now unlikely. VDOT is in the midst of constructing the Dominion Blvd improvements on US-17 in Chesapeake but not up to interstate standards. In fact I think part of it might be tolled. My point is that NC is really going to have to convince VA that upgrading the rest of US-17 is worth the $1 billion or so. Personally I would prefer I-87 travel up the VA-168 corridor. Pretty much all VDOT would have to do is widen some shoulders and that one bridge over the North Landing River. Minimal VDOT work. As for the road still being allowed to be tolled, I'm not sure...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on August 22, 2016, 05:45:37 PM
I wouldn't call it "minimal VDOT work" for VA 168.  That southern 2 miles of VA 168 in Chesapeake has 3 signals, some private access, 2 No-Outlet road intersections, and a crapton of wetlands.

Nevermind that it wouldn't be VDOT but the city of Chesapeake being responsible.

Then there's the little matter of getting a corridor from US 17 over to NC/VA 168.  That wouldn't be cheap either.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 22, 2016, 05:50:27 PM
How many posters believe future Interstate 87 will ever enter Virginia? My guess is that it is a toss-up.

Very unlikely, IMO. The 1992 article I linked in my last post notwithstanding, Virginia has zero interest in I-87. It has the support of Hampton Roads, but that's the extent of it. NC pretty much dragged VA into supporting the bill that helped make I-87 into law (the corridor, not the number). Even then, only 4 out of 11 VA Congressmen supported it while all of NC's delegation supported it.

Personally, I think the only way I-87 will reach Hampton Roads is if NC finishes all of their portion to the state line. Once I-87 is knocking on Chesapeake's doorstep, it might cause HR to put more pressure on the state to go ahead and upgrade US-17 to interstate standards and bring I-87 to I-64, possibly I-264 if it takes over I-464, which is what I'm hoping will happen.

 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Takumi on August 22, 2016, 06:03:45 PM
I don't think it'll ever go into Virginia, and if it does, not past Ballahack Road.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NE2 on August 22, 2016, 06:09:29 PM
Nevermind that it wouldn't be VDOT but the city of Chesapeake being responsible.
If it becomes an Interstate it will most likely be taken over by the state (same for US 17). I don't know why neither is on the state-maintained arterial system in the first place, like US 58 west of Bowers Corner is.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 22, 2016, 06:22:14 PM
I don't think it'll ever go into Virginia, and if it does, not past Ballahack Road.

Since interstates in most cases are required to end at a US Route or another interstate, it would have to be I-64 or bust. Then again, VDOT could decommission I-464 and re-designate it as I-87 and use that as a starting point, similar to what NCDOT is planning to do in Raleigh, but I don't see that happening, at least not until if/when I-87 makes it north of the state line.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 22, 2016, 08:08:18 PM
I wouldn't call it "minimal VDOT work" for VA 168.  That southern 2 miles of VA 168 in Chesapeake has 3 signals, some private access, 2 No-Outlet road intersections, and a crapton of wetlands.

Nevermind that it wouldn't be VDOT but the city of Chesapeake being responsible.

Then there's the little matter of getting a corridor from US 17 over to NC/VA 168.  That wouldn't be cheap either.


So you believe that I-87 should follow US-17 in VA then? I agree "minimal" wasn't the best word choice, I just think that if I-87 took the VA-168 route it would interest VDOT or the City of Chesapeake more as $$$ is always an issue.

As for those final 2 miles of VA-168, I-87 would leave the current VA-168 at Ballahack Road and turn south west to hook us with the current US-17 bypass near Elizabeth City to avoid all the businesses at the state line. Looks good on a map, but I'm sure there would be environmental issues.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on August 22, 2016, 10:21:41 PM
Quote
So you believe that I-87 should follow US-17 in VA then?

I don't believe I-87 should go into Virginia at all.  But, if a freeway-grade facility WERE to some day (likely long after I'm dead) be warranted coming into South Hampton Roads from North Carolina, the US 17 corridor has several advantages over the VA 168 corridor.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: mvak36 on August 23, 2016, 09:27:27 AM

I don't believe I-87 should go into Virginia at all.  But, if a freeway-grade facility WERE to some day (likely long after I'm dead) be warranted coming into South Hampton Roads from North Carolina, the US 17 corridor has several advantages over the VA 168 corridor.

I agree. I think it will only go to Elizabeth City in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on August 25, 2016, 12:03:34 PM
A project on the I-87 corridor was included in NCDOT's draft 2018-2027 STIP.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12910 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12910)

Quote
Projects for coastal North Carolina include:

Converting the U.S. 17/Harvey Point Road/Wayne Fork Road intersection in Perquimans County to an interchange, improving travel along the Future Interstate 87 corridor
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on August 25, 2016, 04:24:36 PM
That one actually wouldn't be bad as a standalone project, as it eliminates one of the two signals on the Hertford bypass, and the busier of the two.  It will be someone expensive, though, in part because there is an isolated house on the northbound US 17 side between the intersection and the Perquimans River bridge that would either need to be bought out or have a frontage road built to.  I think it's more likely to be bought out.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on October 25, 2016, 12:04:32 AM
New Future I-87 signs to go up along US 17 and that construction could start within a decade:
http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 25, 2016, 09:37:27 AM
New Future I-87 signs to go up along US 17 and that construction could start within a decade:
http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html)

Quote
Construction could begin in the next eight years, said State Rep. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan. In the next decade, the segment from the Virginia line to Elizabeth City could be completed.

That's surprising. I figured NCDOT would concentrate on US-64 first since that would be the easiest (and cheapest) to upgrade. :hmm:

Maybe NCDOT thinks that if I-87 is on VA's doorstep, it might goad VDOT into building their part. If that's the case, I think NCDOT is in for a major disappointment if I-73 in VA is any indication...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 25, 2016, 09:43:46 AM
Key word in that article:  COULD.  That's only if A) things go absolutely smoothly, B) the Army CoE grants the wetlands permits (remember that they denied Virginia's for their new US 460), and C) they line up the funding.  And regarding the funding, don't forget that any upgrade-to-Interstate-87 projects would need to be ranked against other planned projects in NCDOT's ranking system.

Given the unlikelihood of all that happening, I'd argue that it won't happen within 10 years.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2016, 03:15:17 PM
In the meantime, maybe North Carolina should focus on funding upgrades to the existing US 64 freeway. Once it is upgraded and signposted as Interstate 87, then maybe the proposed extension could possibly be funded and built.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 25, 2016, 04:25:37 PM
New Future I-87 signs to go up along US 17 and that construction could start within a decade:
http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-interstate-construction-could-begin-within-a-decade/article_2be75322-0114-56c7-a29e-81a19a55ec0a.html)

Quote
Construction could begin in the next eight years, said State Rep. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan. In the next decade, the segment from the Virginia line to Elizabeth City could be completed.

That's surprising. I figured NCDOT would concentrate on US-64 first since that would be the easiest (and cheapest) to upgrade. :hmm:

Maybe NCDOT thinks that if I-87 is on VA's doorstep, it might goad VDOT into building their part. If that's the case, I think NCDOT is in for a major disappointment if I-73 in VA is any indication...

Doesn't mean it won't have upgrades here.  Some of the upgrades to 17 are already planned. 

I didn't see anything but tying existing projects and some wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 10, 2016, 09:15:08 PM
Can anyone catch a shot of a Future Interstate 87 sign? I really want to see how it would be signed.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NE2 on November 10, 2016, 09:31:56 PM
Can anyone catch a shot of a Future Interstate 87 sign? I really want to see how it would be signed.
Do you have an imagination?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 11, 2016, 08:44:06 AM
Can anyone catch a shot of a Future Interstate 87 sign? I really want to see how it would be signed.
Do you have an imagination?
Yeah. I just want to see the signs up. I always really enjoy seeing them being up.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 11, 2016, 06:16:04 PM
We may have to wait awhile for future signs to go up.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 15, 2016, 07:18:53 PM
Spur to Greenville now Future Interstate 587!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19189.0
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on November 29, 2016, 10:06:28 PM
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2016/11/15/Pasquotank-seeks-immediate-funding-for-I-87-1.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2016/11/15/Pasquotank-seeks-immediate-funding-for-I-87-1.html)

Quote
Pasquotank County commissioners are calling for “immediate” funding to develop U.S. 17 in northeastern North Carolina into Interstate 87.

Commissioners adopted a resolution last week that also will be sent to county boards of commissioners in Currituck, Camden, Perquimans, Chowan, Gates and Hertford counties.

Congress last year approved the interstate's creation, but funding wasn't included for bringing roads from Raleigh to Norfolk up to interstate standards.

In adopting the resolution, Pasquotank Commissioner Lloyd Griffin III said, the hope is that counties in the region can set funding priorities for future road projects associated with the I-87 project, including the costly upgrades to portions of highways in Williamston, Windsor and the town of Hertford. There — as well as eventually at Morgans Corner, Commissioner Jeff Dixon noted — I-87 will have to constructed so that through traffic won’t be halted by stoplights.

Counties working together to prioritize I-87 funding will be important, Board of Commissioners Chairman Joe Winslow added, because state road funding will easily go to other projects otherwise. The state's Strategic Mobility Formula scored I-87-related projects poorly, meaning they're a low state priority, earlier this year.

Winslow said local I-87 upgrades would be uniquely beneficial to the region.

“The most benefit to the most counties in the most economic way is this particular resolution, which is opening up northeastern North Carolina,” Winslow said.

Pasquotank's resolution notes the U.S. 17 upgrades would create “synergy” with the expansion of a Foreign Trade Zone from Virginia's ports.

Though supporting the resolution, Dixon questioned other counties' commitment to the resolution, speculating they might prioritize local projects over I-87 development. Gates and Hertford counties have been pushing for upgrades to U.S. Highway 158 and U.S. Highway 13 for years, he noted.

Winslow said he had spoken with commissioners in other counties, and heard no objections to the resolution.

Also present for Monday's meeting were Cathy Davison, executive director of the Albemarle Commission, a regional economic development agency, and Angela Welsh, director of the Albemarle Rural Planning Organization. Supporting the resolution, Davison noted Pasquotank had available land that companies will need for expanding operations near Virginia's ports.

“Your industrial park is closer to the port than the closest vacant land in Virginia,” Davison said.

So far, the state has funded feasibility studies for U.S. 17 and U.S. 64 to plan development of the I-87 corridor.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on November 30, 2016, 07:44:05 AM
Quote
“Your industrial park is closer to the port than the closest vacant land in Virginia,” Davison said.

This statement from the article is flat out false.  Plenty of empty land in Suffolk and Chesapeake, some of which I believe is even zoned industrial, that is closer to the port than any NC industrial park.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 30, 2016, 04:04:01 PM
Immediate funding? Impatient, aren't we Pasquotank County? If only other DOTs could commit to funding projects with such speed and urgency.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on November 30, 2016, 04:24:17 PM
Quote
“Your industrial park is closer to the port than the closest vacant land in Virginia,” Davison said.

This statement from the article is flat out false.  Plenty of empty land in Suffolk and Chesapeake, some of which I believe is even zoned industrial, that is closer to the port than any NC industrial park.

The land between US 17 and Chesapeake Regional Airport is zoned light industrial and is essentially empty.  Guess she's never driven from Elizabeth City to Deep Creek before...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: orulz on December 01, 2016, 10:08:22 AM
Land zoned for light industrial is easy to come by. Land for heavy manufacturing or other high-impact industry is NOT. That may be what they're talking about here.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on December 01, 2016, 12:54:08 PM
In which case I'm still calling shenanigans, as there is still plenty of available heavy industrial land much closer to the port than E-City, including the former Ford plant right across from downtown Norfolk.  Can't get much closer than that..
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: orulz on December 01, 2016, 09:33:51 PM
It's a lot harder to develop on brownfields and derelict industrial buildings than greenfield land. Old industrial sites can require hundred million dollar cleanups that take a year or more. That said, it does sound odd that you would have to go that far to find ANYTHING....

LGL44VL

Title: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 03, 2016, 11:58:39 PM
I'm way behind on this story, but has it been mentioned that this eerily bears out old MTR fictional mutterings about running I-87 down the Garden State Parkway, into the Delmarva, and into Hampton Roads? 

Regardless, I don't like the precedent for duplicate numbers so close (and I'm a fairly loose constructionist on numbering).  But we live in the era of "If I can decide to believe something and say it, it can be right and good and true," so old rules be damned.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on December 04, 2016, 08:57:06 AM
^ MTR wasn't specifically mentioned, but yes there was conversation amongst some about how to connect the two I-87's....
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: vdeane on December 04, 2016, 05:08:31 PM
Heck, speculation from NCDOT about such things is the very reason why they requested an odd number to begin with!  Maybe it's also why AASHTO changed I-89 to I-87?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 04, 2016, 06:31:51 PM
Heck, speculation from NCDOT about such things is the very reason why they requested an odd number to begin with!  Maybe it's also why AASHTO changed I-89 to I-87?
IMHO we'll never see the two I-87's joined, but I'm sure it will be a topic for the forum for years to come.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2016, 07:05:37 PM
Heck, speculation from NCDOT about such things is the very reason why they requested an odd number to begin with!  Maybe it's also why AASHTO changed I-89 to I-87?
IMHO we'll never see the two I-87's joined, but I'm sure it will be a topic for the forum for years to come.

This was also floated by fantasizers as I-101.

Funny footnote: these were among the first things I read on MTR and the roadgeek sites of the day and I did not, in fact, know fictional proposals were offered there in such detail.  I repeated these "plans" to others before realizing they were imaginary.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on December 05, 2016, 06:10:25 AM
Heck, speculation from NCDOT about such things is the very reason why they requested an odd number to begin with!  Maybe it's also why AASHTO changed I-89 to I-87?

NCDOT, back when the numbers had yet to be finalized, cited conflict with state routes as the rationale for their initial choice of I-89, stating that all the available even numbers above 40 were state highways in the adjacent areas (their original choice of I-36 for the US 70 corridor also followed this logic). AASHTO basically told them that internal conflicts wouldn't rationalize the out-of-grid selection of "36" for the other corridor and basically assigned them I-42, even with NC 42 crossing the corridor in question.  Their rationale for changing 89 to 87 was arcane at best (it "lined up better longitudinally with the existing I-87") -- why, considering what they did with I-42, they didn't throw 46, 54, or another number at the situation remains perplexing.  A few weeks ago I stumbled across something that claimed the "87" number was selected for regional historical significance -- something important happened in 1687, something else in 1787 (OK, the U.S. Constitution was adopted, so that's at least genuine if a bit obvious), and something else in 1887 -- it seems a little like there's a bit of "reaching" to rationalize a decision that was based upon a discarded theory (the conflict with state highways having primacy). 

If you get the impression that I consider 87 to be an ill-conceived designation for this route, you are absolutely correct!  Will we all have to live with it?  Probably -- but that doesn't mean we can't grouse a bit!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on December 05, 2016, 07:39:20 AM
A few weeks ago I stumbled across something that claimed the "87" number was selected for regional historical significance -- something important happened in 1687, something else in 1787 (OK, the U.S. Constitution was adopted, so that's at least genuine if a bit obvious), and something else in 1887 -- it seems a little like there's a bit of "reaching" to rationalize a decision that was based upon a discarded theory (the conflict with state highways having primacy.

That was an article just giving spin for I-87. It wasn't like they were gonna announce that the only reason I-87 was chosen was because I-89 got rejected.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on December 05, 2016, 03:24:10 PM
A few weeks ago I stumbled across something that claimed the "87" number was selected for regional historical significance -- something important happened in 1687, something else in 1787 (OK, the U.S. Constitution was adopted, so that's at least genuine if a bit obvious), and something else in 1887 -- it seems a little like there's a bit of "reaching" to rationalize a decision that was based upon a discarded theory (the conflict with state highways having primacy.

That was an article just giving spin for I-87. It wasn't like they were gonna announce that the only reason I-87 was chosen was because I-89 got rejected.

"Yeah....umm....the number 87 was chosen because a lot of stuff happened around here in years ending in 87.  Not much happened in '89' years.....that's the ticket!"
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2016, 05:10:48 PM
I would have preferred an even second digit for this freeway, since it currently goes more east-west than north-south. Only if Interstate 87 is extended in a north-south fashion north of Williamston will this be a legitimate Interstate with an odd second digit.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: vdeane on December 05, 2016, 05:45:51 PM
I guess AASHTO must have thought NCDOT had a logical reason for choosing an odd number instead of accepting that NC does not give a **** about the interstate numbering system.  They're just like California: too cheap to renumber a state route, so they expect the more important system to bend to their whims.  That's not how it should work; the more important system should get numbering priority.  Thus, US routes, should bend to the whims of the interstates, and state routes should bend to the whims of both, and counties getting the scraps of whatever is left.  It's a shame that we've been doing the opposite since the inception of the interstate system.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: plain on December 05, 2016, 06:42:19 PM
Any odd number for a Norfolk to Raleigh route is ridiculous no matter what excuse officials want to put out there. And on top of that if an interstate corridor was to actually happen from Wilmington (Delaware) southward, what sense would it make to have it terminate at Raleigh?? If anything it should terminate at I-95 in southern Georgia or at the very least South Carolina. Either way only an even numbered interstate makes sense for the US 64 corridor
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: jwolfer on December 05, 2016, 10:47:28 PM
Any odd number for a Norfolk to Raleigh route is ridiculous no matter what excuse officials want to put out there. And on top of that if an interstate corridor was to actually happen from Wilmington (Delaware) southward, what sense would it make to have it terminate at Raleigh?? If anything it should terminate at I-95 in southern Georgia or at the very least South Carolina. Either way only an even numbered interstate makes sense for the US 64 corridor
I agree on that.. End it just north of Savannah.. Once in Georgia i95 is pretty much right on the coast, in some places i95 is the last road before the ocean

LGMS428

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2016, 06:45:06 AM
Any odd number for a Norfolk to Raleigh route is ridiculous no matter what excuse officials want to put out there. And on top of that if an interstate corridor was to actually happen from Wilmington (Delaware) southward, what sense would it make to have it terminate at Raleigh?? If anything it should terminate at I-95 in southern Georgia or at the very least South Carolina. Either way only an even numbered interstate makes sense for the US 64 corridor
I agree on that.. End it just north of Savannah.. Once in Georgia i95 is pretty much right on the coast, in some places i95 is the last road before the ocean

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: adventurernumber1 on January 10, 2017, 11:31:28 AM
I'm honestly all for throwing an interstate designation on this corridor, but IMHO Interstate 87 is not the right number.

I initially was thinking Interstate 46 or Interstate 48 would be a good choice. However, US Highway 48 runs through Virginia, so the number 48 is out of the question (the last thing we need is another interstate in NC like 74 that violates the interstate and US highway numbering rules). That leaves us with 46. I think an Interstate 46 designation would work perfectly fine for this corridor, as it is more east-west than it is north-south, even if the interstate does make it to Virginia.

In addition to this, that means that the proposed I-587 on the US 264 corridor would work perfectly fine as an odd I-x46 interstate designation.

I honestly don't see why North Carolina needs to further cluster up their future interstate system. I love the idea, just not the numbering.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Thing 342 on January 10, 2017, 02:02:54 PM
What difference does it make? Exactly zero people outside of this forum care whether 87 is the 'right' number for the road. The grid was only relevant when deciding the numbers for the initial routes.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2017, 04:09:24 PM
I agree. It could be Interstate 90210 and I doubt there would be much protest.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: adventurernumber1 on January 12, 2017, 12:58:26 PM
What difference does it make? Exactly zero people outside of this forum care whether 87 is the 'right' number for the road. The grid was only relevant when deciding the numbers for the initial routes.

I agree. It could be Interstate 90210 and I doubt there would be much protest.

You're both right. Unfortunately, I don't think theres much we can do about the numbering, which means to everyone outside this forum, my Interstate 46 suggestion is probably meaningless and would be to no avail. With that said, I have come up with a possible solution to fix up this I-87 stuff (which, I-87 isn't breaking any rules that I know of, I just personally don't think it is the best fit for this corridor) in the General Highway Talk - Duplicate Interstates thread:

With that said, it sounds like we will have to accept the Interstate 87 numbering, and with that said, I would be all for extending this new I-87 corridor north onto the Delmarva Peninsula, up to Wilmington, Delaware, then possibly have a brief concurrency with I-95 then I-295 into New Jersey, then have I-87 routed along the New Jersey Turnpike and later concurrent with I-95 along it until reaching New York City, and reaching the current, northern Interstate 87. Should that happen, the southernmost section of current I-87 from I-95 to I-278 could be an unused even I-x87 interstate designation, such like that of how I-75 in downtown Knoxville, Tennessee became Interstate 275. That might potentially sound wacky - possibly either like a really good idea or a really bad idea. But it would connect the two I-87s. While a lot of I-87 would be out of the grid, its southernmost part in North Carolina between Raleigh and I-95, and all of the current, northern I-87 in New York would not be. This could also work since it looks like they aren't going to change the numbering of I-97 and I-99 (which are both badly numbered, but that we have all long accepted, besides our fantasizing), and should a proposed Interstate 101 still come into play, it could connect I-87 in NC to I-95 in GA or SC, serving the east coast in that region. That is the best way (that I know of) we could modify the creation of this southern, duplicate Interstate 87.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 12, 2017, 05:41:17 PM
Put your second paragraph in Fictional Highways. I doubt the two Interstate 87s will ever be connected. Just like the two 74s, the two 76s, the two 84s, the two 86s, and the two 88s.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 07:58:09 AM
Put your second paragraph in Fictional Highways. I doubt the two Interstate 87s will ever be connected. Just like the two 74s, the two 76s, the two 84s, the two 86s, and the two 88s.

...and the two 99s. :D
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: english si on January 13, 2017, 09:11:35 AM
and the four I-69s (MI-IN, KY, TN-MS, TX). OK, the northern two might get joined together...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 13, 2017, 05:59:33 PM
Oh right, can't forget those. However, those two routes have a higher likelihood of perhaps ultimately being connected, than the other ones mentioned.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 02, 2017, 12:48:42 PM
Mississippi's portion of I-69 and the Great River Bridge are both long shots of ever getting built any time soon. I-69 in Arkansas and Louisiana will only get short segments completed in a few spots over the next 10-20 years.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Henry on February 10, 2017, 09:35:44 AM
Put your second paragraph in Fictional Highways. I doubt the two Interstate 87s will ever be connected. Just like the two 74s, the two 76s, the two 84s, the two 86s, and the two 88s.

...and the two 99s. :D
and the four I-69s (MI-IN, KY, TN-MS, TX). OK, the northern two might get joined together...
...(ahem) and the two I-49s (AR), at least until that section in the middle gets built.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on March 19, 2017, 11:49:07 PM
Apparently, the FHWA has approved the decommissioning of I-495 between I-440 and I-540 and approved the establishment of I-87 from I-40 in Raleigh (running with with I-440 for its first 2.9 miles) 12.9 miles to the end of the Knightdale Bypass at US 64 Business. This is now listed in the updated FHWA Table 1 -Main Routes of the Interstate System, updated on Feb. 21:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)

(I-495 is no longer listed for North Carolina on Table 2)

And, not related to I-87, but I-14 has been added for Texas totaling 25.1 miles.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on March 20, 2017, 05:58:53 AM
I-495 is still listed in Tables 3 & 4 for NC.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on March 20, 2017, 07:57:49 AM
Nothing new here (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Route-Changes.aspx#InplviewHash375b26b0-7df8-41aa-be6e-fc71a9417a28=SortField%3DChange_x0020_One-SortDir%3DAsc-WebPartID%3D%7B375B26B0--7DF8--41AA--BE6E--FC71A9417A28%7D), either.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on March 20, 2017, 10:35:48 AM
Sooooo....which is it? FHWA says the Knightdale Bypass and a bit of I-440 is in the Interstate system as I-87 in Tables 1 & 4, I-495 isn't listed on Table 2 but is on Tables 3 & 4, and according to NCDOT I-87 doesn't exist yet and there's been no announcement by them concerning I-495 and I-87 recently. There's also been no applications submitted by NCDOT to AASHTO or FHWA asking for I-495's removal and/or permission to put up I-87 shields.

Is FHWA smoking crack?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on March 20, 2017, 10:51:49 AM
We don't know if there have been applications submitted.  Presumably there have been, but if so, the public doesn't have access to them.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on March 22, 2017, 10:19:19 AM
Apparently, the FHWA has approved the decommissioning of I-495 between I-440 and I-540 and approved the establishment of I-87 from I-40 in Raleigh (running with with I-440 for its first 2.9 miles) 12.9 miles to the end of the Knightdale Bypass at US 64 Business. This is now listed in the updated FHWA Table 1 -Main Routes of the Interstate System, updated on Feb. 21:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)

(I-495 is no longer listed for North Carolina on Table 2)
Given at least FHWA's official recognition of I-87 in NC, I have created a new NC Future Interstates page based on my previous I-495 page (I've kept the I-495 page up, for now, to document the history of the short-lived route). The link:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2017, 04:45:14 PM
Maybe the 495 designation should not have been issued, if it was to replaced by a 2-digit Interstate designation only a few years after it was posted. And since 495 will now never reach 95, maybe it should have been an x-40 Interstate spur (although there aren't a lot of numbers to choose from anymore, if they went that route).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on March 23, 2017, 05:10:41 PM
Maybe the 495 designation should not have been issued, if it was to replaced by a 2-digit Interstate designation only a few years after it was posted. And since 495 will now never reach 95, maybe it should have been an x-40 Interstate spur (although there aren't a lot of numbers to choose from anymore, if they went that route).

Well, there still aren't any I-340's anywhere!  But IIRC, the "495" designation was specifically selected by Raleigh metro as an indicator that the route was intended to serve as an "umbilical" between itself and the I-95 corridor -- that although removed from the actual 95 alignment by a few dozen miles, the city was still functionally served by it. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on March 23, 2017, 05:32:11 PM
When NCDOT requested I-495, they didn't anticipate the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor being signed into law as quick as it did. They sent an application to FHWA requesting Future I-44 for US-64/17 back in 2012, but it was presumably denied since the route wasn't Congressionally designated and that there was no way NCDOT could meet the 25-year deadline for upgrading the entire corridor to interstate standards unless a huge pile of cash fell in their lap.

I-495 was "Plan B" when I-44 didn't pan out since US-64 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount could easily be upgraded within a 25-year period.

NCDOT swung for the fences with I-44, struck out, used I-495 as a fallback & successfully sold it as a corridor connecting Raleigh to I-95, then got trolled by the FAST Act after I-495 shields went up. Hello I-87. Goodbye I-495.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: vdeane on March 23, 2017, 07:01:34 PM
If an even number was acceptable before, why wasn't it acceptable now?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on March 24, 2017, 07:06:26 AM
If an even number was acceptable before, why wasn't it acceptable now?

My guess is it's for the same reason I-495 is signed N/S rather than E/W: To give Raleigh a "N/S" connection to I-95 and the Northeast while also having an interstate connection to Hampton Roads.

It's also possible that VDOT wanted an odd number, though I doubt that's the case. VA isn't keen on new interstates, especially if I-73 is any indication. There has been no mention of I-87 AT ALL by VDOT. Now, if it benefited Richmond or NoVA, it would probably be different. That being said, I see no hurry for VA to upgrade US-17. There are more important projects in Hampton Roads at the moment.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on March 30, 2017, 10:33:04 AM
Just started updating Wikipedia. Updated the I-495 page. God, this will be a long process. I'm done for now. Glad that I-87 is designated. Get I-42 designated along the beginning of its route.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2017, 05:42:26 PM
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2017, 06:06:07 PM
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?
For US 70/I-42 there are web sites with full information:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70corridor/

http://www.super70corridor.com/

I don't think NCDOT has a page yet for I-87 upgrades.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2017, 09:22:45 PM
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?

The draft 2017-27 STIP (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/Draft%202017-2027%20STIP.pdf) says interstate from Williamston to Virginia is undergoing a feasibility study.  It also says the same about upgrading US 64 from Wake County to Williamston.

There are however projects that might contribute to the conversion:  Interchanges with US 17 and Perquimans SR 1300 and Perquimans SR 1336/1338.  Construction slated to start in FY 2025 and 2026 respectively.  US 64 bridge widening at Nash SR 1603 (FY 2025 start)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 03, 2017, 12:34:40 AM
Just started updating Wikipedia. Updated the I-495 page. God, this will be a long process. I'm done for now. Glad that I-87 is designated. Get I-42 designated along the beginning of its route.

I reversed them too, because you are jumping the gun.  There are no I-87 guide signs posted, only the "Future" signs; I-495 is still active designation in the state.  Until NCDOT makes the changes, the I-495 article should remain.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on April 04, 2017, 02:07:16 AM
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?

US 64 east of the US 258 interchange in Tarboro and all the way to US 17 is already at Interstate standards (shoulders, etc.); it was completed after the 1991 ISTEA act designated it a high-priority corridor (#13).  Whether or not that in itself prompted the upgrade of physical standards on that section is a matter of speculation at this point -- but it's "ready to go".  Nevertheless, there's no indication that it will receive advanced signage; most likely it'll have to wait until the remainder of the route from Knightdale to Tarboro is brought up to spec. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Finrod on June 03, 2017, 04:35:23 PM
I wonder if there's any chance that I-87 will be extended in the future south of Raleigh; the most logical place would be along the US 1 corridor.  I've heard that there is serious local opposition to making US 1 an expressway all the way to Rockingham, who knows if that will change if the possibility of it becoming an interstate gets thrown into the mix.

The most logical place for it to go south of there would be down to I-20 at Camden, but since South Carolina can't seem to get I-73 built to Myrtle Beach, the chances of something like that happening would be remote at best.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 03, 2017, 04:39:18 PM
I'd support making US 1 a southern extension of Interstate 87. I doubt it will happen, though.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 03, 2017, 08:23:54 PM
I-87 isn't going to South Carolina. SC does not play well with others (if I-20 & I-74 is any indication) and building I-87 in SC would not be easy, if not costly.

I-87 going to Rockingham? Maybe, considering that NCDOT once tried to get US-1 between I-40/440 and Sanford designated as I-140.

I-87 connecting to I-20? Not a chance.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: english si on June 03, 2017, 09:03:21 PM
I-73 pretty much has south of Rockingham covered - the place to go with hypothetical I-87 'south' of Rockingham is Charlotte.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: HazMatt on June 03, 2017, 10:28:40 PM
SC isn't going to do anything.  Another option is to use I-42 instead, routing it via the southern portion of 540 (once built), US-1 to Rockingham and US-74 to Charlotte.  An E-W number makes more sense if they go that route.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 03, 2017, 11:15:10 PM
Someday, NC wants an US  64 freeway from Raleigh to Mocksville, save 42 for that.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Finrod on June 03, 2017, 11:56:15 PM
Someday, NC wants an US  64 freeway from Raleigh to Mocksville, save 42 for that.

Making US 64 an expressway would be a useful bypass of Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and Durham for I-40 traffic, and would be a logical westward extension of I-42.  I-36 or I-38 would be the natural numbering for a US 74 expressway from I-26 to Wilmington, as long as the overlap with I-74 wasn't too much.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on June 09, 2017, 11:46:33 AM
AASHTO has approved NCDOT's request to eliminate I-495 and Future I-495 between I-440 and I-95, paving way for I-87 (and Future I-87):
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%2001-Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2017.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%2001-Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2017.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 09, 2017, 12:50:21 PM
AASHTO has approved NCDOT's request to eliminate I-495 and Future I-495 between I-440 and I-95, paving way for I-87 (and Future I-87):
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%2001-Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2017.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%2001-Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2017.pdf)

It also appears that I-440 isn't going anywhere, which means I-87 & I-440 will be concurrent.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 09, 2017, 01:38:12 PM
Given NCDOT's past precedent, that could easily change...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: orulz on June 09, 2017, 04:47:47 PM
US 64 west of Apex would be easy to convert to an expressway or freeway but interstate standards might be difficult due to stuff like grades and vertical curvature of hill crests. There would be a lot of closures for scraping and blasting in a bunch of places along that route.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2017, 04:48:35 PM
Do Interstate 440 and future Interstate 87 really have to be concurrent between Exits 14 and 16?  I wouldn't agree. Then again, it wouldn't be unprecedented. Interstate 84 and Interstate 380 in Pennsylvania are co-designated with one another to a common terminus at Interstate 81, but likely only because Interstate 380 was originally Interstate 81S, then Interstate 81E. Also Interstate 84 was to have continued west of existing 380 to meet 81 in another location. Back to the topic at hand, I believe that an 87/440 duplex is unnecessary.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 09, 2017, 05:57:31 PM
Not only do I think that a 440/87 concurrency is unnecessary, I'd go a step further and say that I-87 should've ended at I-440 just like I-495 did, but that ship has sailed.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 09, 2017, 06:01:56 PM
Given NCDOT's past precedent, that could easily change...

True, but if they really wanted to get rid of I-440 anytime soon, it might've been better to decommission it at the same time as I-495. Kill two birds with one stone...or in this case, two I-shields with one AASHTO meeting.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 09, 2017, 06:25:00 PM
Not only do I think that a 440/87 concurrency is unnecessary, I'd go a step further and say that I-87 should've ended at I-440 just like I-495 did, but that ship has sailed.
Forum members like to be tidy about these things, I know, but drivers in the Raleigh area will want to have the concurrence. I-440 is the Raleigh Beltline; it needs to meet I-40 at both ends. I-87 will take over from US 64 as the route east; it needs to begin at I-40.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:47:19 PM
What is a "beltline"?  If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC.  Or they could just do the Harrisburg solution an install signs saying "Raleigh Beltline" along the routes without overlaps.  Route names and numbers don't necessarily need to have 1:1 correspondence; see NYC, where they're two completely independent systems.

And yes, I-87 needs to end at I-40.  It's a 2di after all, even though IMO I-495 from I-440 to I-95 was perfectly adequate.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 10, 2017, 08:27:12 PM
What is a "beltline"?  If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC. 

Actually it originally did for awhile but it was removed from the I-40 portion in 2008 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2008_11_10.pdf).  It also had INNER and OUTER designations but is now just EAST-WEST. (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-40-and-i-440-signage-changes-around.html)

My NC knowledge is not well enough to know why they chose Beltline, but at one point even US 70, US 401, and NC 50 (I believe that Adam Prince had something on this on the defunct Gribblenation somewhere) were put on it instead of going through downtown Raleigh and to me it just looked like a convoluted mess.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Henry on June 10, 2017, 11:26:26 PM
Now that 42 and 87 are designated, are there any near-term plans for upgrading the two roads to Interstate Standards (and converting all of US 70 into a continuous freeway)?

US 64 east of the US 258 interchange in Tarboro and all the way to US 17 is already at Interstate standards (shoulders, etc.); it was completed after the 1991 ISTEA act designated it a high-priority corridor (#13).  Whether or not that in itself prompted the upgrade of physical standards on that section is a matter of speculation at this point -- but it's "ready to go".  Nevertheless, there's no indication that it will receive advanced signage; most likely it'll have to wait until the remainder of the route from Knightdale to Tarboro is brought up to spec. 
Since US 70 already follows the same route as I-40 west of Durham, a freeway upgrade isn't really necessary.

I wonder if there's any chance that I-87 will be extended in the future south of Raleigh; the most logical place would be along the US 1 corridor.  I've heard that there is serious local opposition to making US 1 an expressway all the way to Rockingham, who knows if that will change if the possibility of it becoming an interstate gets thrown into the mix.

The most logical place for it to go south of there would be down to I-20 at Camden, but since South Carolina can't seem to get I-73 built to Myrtle Beach, the chances of something like that happening would be remote at best.
I'd rather just stop it at Rockingham, and make a complete freeway bypass of I-85 between Henderson and Charlotte (with upgraded portions of US 1 between Henderson and Raleigh and US 74 west of Rockingham to such).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 11, 2017, 05:27:44 AM
And yes, I-87 needs to end at I-40.  It's a 2di after all, even though IMO I-495 from I-440 to I-95 was perfectly adequate.

I-87 was cooked up to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. The "Raleigh-Norfolk" reasoning was basically used as a means to an end. It's already helped spawn Future I-587, linking Greenville to I-95 and Raleigh, and there's a push to have the NC-11/US-13 corridor between US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel become an interstate. It's already been introduced in Congress once shortly before last year's elections and while it didn't get anywhere, the idea is still alive and well.

https://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation (https://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation)

Raleigh was more than happy to push for it because it linked the city to I-95, and because there's currently little chance of US-1 becoming an interstate between I-540 and I-85 in Henderson.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Finrod on June 13, 2017, 01:27:59 PM
... and there's a push to have the NC-11/US-13 corridor between US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel become an interstate.

If it wasn't for the short distance, this would be the correct spot in the grid for I-97 or I-99.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: 1 on June 13, 2017, 01:46:59 PM
... and there's a push to have the NC-11/US-13 corridor between US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel become an interstate.

If it wasn't for the short distance, this would be the correct spot in the grid for I-97 or I-99.

I-97 was never off-grid to begin with.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 13, 2017, 02:37:04 PM
... and there's a push to have the NC-11/US-13 corridor between US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel become an interstate.

If it wasn't for the short distance, this would be the correct spot in the grid for I-97 or I-99.

I-97 was never off-grid to begin with.

If the designation happens, it will most likely be another I-x87, since it's purpose is to connect Kinston's Global Transpark and Greenville to Hampton Roads. That's the final leg of the "Quad East" interstate idea they've been pushing since 2013.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 13, 2017, 06:42:28 PM
What is a "beltline"?  If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC.  Or they could just do the Harrisburg solution an install signs saying "Raleigh Beltline" along the routes without overlaps.  Route names and numbers don't necessarily need to have 1:1 correspondence; see NYC, where they're two completely independent systems.

And yes, I-87 needs to end at I-40.  It's a 2di after all, even though IMO I-495 from I-440 to I-95 was perfectly adequate.
The name Raleigh Beltline dates back to the early 1950s; this may be before the term beltway became common. Wikipedia has a few other examples of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltline
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2017, 04:05:50 PM
The major freeway along the south and west sides of the Madison area (US 12/14/18/151) is known as The Beltline. It's hard to believe today that when the roadway first opened in 1951, it was a two-lane highway with at-grade intersections.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 14, 2017, 08:36:50 PM
What is a "beltline"?  If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC. 

Actually it originally did for awhile but it was removed from the I-40 portion in 2008 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2008_11_10.pdf).  It also had INNER and OUTER designations but is now just EAST-WEST. (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-40-and-i-440-signage-changes-around.html)

My NC knowledge is not well enough to know why they chose Beltline, but at one point even US 70, US 401, and NC 50 (I believe that Adam Prince had something on this on the defunct Gribblenation somewhere) were put on it instead of going through downtown Raleigh and to me it just looked like a convoluted mess.

Here's the archive link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160413080339/http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/raleigh/beltline.html

I haven't migrated this page to Sure, Why Not as there are some photos and other information I have that would expand the feature.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 14, 2017, 11:53:54 PM
What is a "beltline"?  If it's just some weird term for a beltway, than it needs to overlap with I-40 as well, similar to DC.  Or they could just do the Harrisburg solution an install signs saying "Raleigh Beltline" along the routes without overlaps.  Route names and numbers don't necessarily need to have 1:1 correspondence; see NYC, where they're two completely independent systems.
The name Raleigh Beltline dates back to the early 1950s; this may be before the term beltway became common. Wikipedia has a few other examples of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltline

I have wondered about the term "beltline" as well.  Might be an appropriate term for a partial beltway bypass, which was what the Raleigh Beltline was when first built as a northern bypass in the 1950s.  The southern portion was built in the 1980s.

Richmond, VA has the I-195 Beltline Expressway, an official name but one that has been seldom used by the public.  That name came from the depressed Beltline Railroad that I-195 was built around.

"The present location of I-195 was fixed, unknowingly, 81 years before Mr. Volpe's action. The north-south corridor it now occupies was selected by the R.F.& P. R.R. [Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad] in 1888 for its new "James River Branch (Beltline)" which was to handle north-south freight traffic."

"World War I conditions during this period, and drainage problems, hampered the excavation and bridge construction, but the double-tracked, depressed Beltline Railroad was opened simultaneously with the opening of the new Broad Street Station, on January 6, 1919."

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I195_VA.html
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 16, 2017, 10:17:39 PM
Google Maps is smoking weed again. US-64 between I-440 and I-95 is labled as I-87. They also took it a step further and have I-87 concurrent with I-40, ending at the I-440/US-1 interchange in Cary. :pan:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: amroad17 on June 17, 2017, 12:09:40 AM
Apparently, Google Maps either can see into the future or this is a future map brought back to our time.  :spin:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: fillup420 on June 17, 2017, 12:08:13 PM
I bet NC state officials submitted to Google that I-87 and I-587 be labeled. Everyone uses GPS nowadays, and it will cause folks to start calling the roads by their interstate number. Eventually the new numbers will become mainstream, and they won't even have to officially designate them.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 17, 2017, 12:45:32 PM
I bet NC state officials AARoads forum users submitted to Google that I-87 and I-587 be labeled.

Fixed.  Not specific to these particular roads, but I always find it funny when I read on here something like "Hey look!  They labeled new roads on Google Maps", as if it wasn't somebody from this very forum who had something to do with getting it changed - especially in advance of it being official.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: fillup420 on June 17, 2017, 12:50:54 PM

Fixed.  Not specific to these particular roads, but I always find it funny when I read on here something like "Hey look!  They labeled new roads on Google Maps", as if it wasn't somebody from this very forum who had something to do with getting it changed - especially in advance of it being official.

True, I didn't even think of it being anyone on here haha
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: vdeane on June 17, 2017, 09:58:49 PM
I would think someone from here would wait for it to be officially designated, instead of just "future".
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 18, 2017, 12:32:57 AM

Fixed.  Not specific to these particular roads, but I always find it funny when I read on here something like "Hey look!  They labeled new roads on Google Maps", as if it wasn't somebody from this very forum who had something to do with getting it changed - especially in advance of it being official.

True, I didn't even think of it being anyone on here haha
I would think someone from here would wait for it to be officially designated, instead of just "future".

There are a few "wishful thinkers" among the posters here; maybe this is just a playful prank to see how many of us actually notice the Google "designation" and comment on it.  Pretty silly & pointless in any case.  More telling will be to see how long the designation stays up until someone edits it out!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: english si on June 18, 2017, 03:41:22 AM
I would think someone from here would wait for it to be officially designated, instead of just "future".
Aren't there future signs? Due to that a regular driver might say "this is I-87".
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on June 18, 2017, 10:26:42 AM
I would think someone from here would wait for it to be officially designated, instead of just "future".
Aren't there future signs? Due to that a regular driver might say "this is I-87".

I drove I-495 between I-440 and I-540 on Thursday.  I-495 fully posted.  No I-87 signage of any kind.

I-87 Future corridor signs exist on US 17 in the Elizabeth City area...not sure if they have gone up anywhere on US 64 east of I-95 or not...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 18, 2017, 02:33:42 PM
I drove I-495 between I-440 and I-540 on Thursday.  I-495 fully posted.  No I-87 signage of any kind.

I-495 was just recently decommissioned by AASHTO last month, so it might be a while before I-87 replaces I-495. NCDOT will probably do it sometime this summer.

Quote
I-87 Future corridor signs exist on US 17 in the Elizabeth City area...not sure if they have gone up anywhere on US 64 east of I-95 or not...

They have.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/300176946738649?view=permalink&id=1314095395346794&refid=18&_ft_=qid.6433047010773380868%3Amf_story_key.1314095395346794%3Atop_level_post_id.1314095395346794%3Atl_objid.1314095395346794&__tn__=%2As (https://m.facebook.com/groups/300176946738649?view=permalink&id=1314095395346794&refid=18&_ft_=qid.6433047010773380868%3Amf_story_key.1314095395346794%3Atop_level_post_id.1314095395346794%3Atl_objid.1314095395346794&__tn__=%2As)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Jordanes on June 18, 2017, 08:12:22 PM
I-87 Future corridor signs exist on US 17 in the Elizabeth City area...not sure if they have gone up anywhere on US 64 east of I-95 or not...

They are also posted on the bypass around Edenton.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Henry on June 20, 2017, 10:42:08 AM
As I said, unless they figure out a way to connect this to New York, there will be three badly botched interstates in the Tar Heel State: I-87, I-74 and I-73. Well, other than the fact that I-73 is completely east of I-77 (and I-75 for that matter), I'm not bothered by it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2017, 11:02:57 AM
The cost of upgrading the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel to interstate standards and the extremely environmentally sensitive region known as the Eastern Shore of VA, along with it's notoriously hardcore NIMBY residents (especially those in Northampton County), guarantees that I-87 will never go beyond Norfolk, and that's assuming VA even builds their part of I-87 (which I doubt).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 20, 2017, 11:10:29 AM
^ What LM117 said.  And on that same note, the prevalent lowlands/wetlands along the Dismal Swamp Canal corridor will make upgrading US 17 between E-City and Dominion Blvd very challenging, expensive, and likely not to happen.  It should also be noted that the major bridges along US 17 between Williamston and E-City are *NOT* Interstate standard and would also be very expensive to upgrade.  Also a lot of wetlands in the Roanoke River valley between Williamston and Windsor.

For these reasons, I don't see I-87 even going past Williamston, let alone Norfolk.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 20, 2017, 11:36:58 AM
Is I-87 in Virginia supposed to use the VA 168 Chesapeake Expressway or an upgraded US 17? Because it would seem that using VA 168 would require a lot less construction than using US 17.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 20, 2017, 11:50:01 AM
It would actually require a lot more as you'd have to find a way to get a new alignment route from US 17 to NC/VA 168.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 12:07:33 PM
^ What LM117 said.  And on that same note, the prevalent lowlands/wetlands along the Dismal Swamp Canal corridor will make upgrading US 17 between E-City and Dominion Blvd very challenging, expensive, and likely not to happen.  It should also be noted that the major bridges along US 17 between Williamston and E-City are *NOT* Interstate standard and would also be very expensive to upgrade.  Also a lot of wetlands in the Roanoke River valley between Williamston and Windsor.

For these reasons, I don't see I-87 even going past Williamston, let alone Norfolk.

I am opposed to this I-87, there is about 100 miles of US-17 between Williamston and Dominion Blvd., and the vast majority of the route would need to be on new location, and in addition to numerous environmentally sensitive areas, we're looking at $30 million or more per mile for rural Interstate construction.  So $3 billion or more, and that doesn't include the costs of upgrades from Williamston to Raleigh.

The existing US-64 and US-17 highway is already a decent 4-lane divided interregional highway that serves the corridor well.  There is nothing in that corridor that would warrant an Interstate highway other than the endpoints (R-D and H.R.), and the route is 25 miles longer than the current I-95 and US-58 routing, so this I-87 really isn't workable to connect the end points either.

As I have mentioned in other posts there are already some upgrades in planning on US-58.

Very bad idea this I-87, IMHO.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: english si on June 20, 2017, 12:47:44 PM
It would actually require a lot more as you'd have to find a way to get a new alignment route from US 17 to NC/VA 168.
A lot less construction in VA though!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 20, 2017, 12:51:19 PM
Depends on how they routed such an alignment.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: plain on June 20, 2017, 01:24:54 PM
In Virginia the US 17 corridor would definitely be the preferred alignment if they really insist on building this stupid thing.

Agreed with LM117 and froggie on their points.

Really I'm starting to think this is all just an attempt by NC to get federal funding to rehabilitate US 64...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 20, 2017, 02:03:42 PM
It's not.  Because Future Interstate designation does not give access to any additional pots of Federal funding.  If anything, given Federal law (mostly) and FHWA policy (a little), what this will do is force NCDOT to spend Federal funding on US 64 that they now won't have for other corridors, because it comes from their normal Federal highway funding allotment.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2017, 02:29:23 PM
It's not.  Because Future Interstate designation does not give access to any additional pots of Federal funding.  If anything, given Federal law (mostly) and FHWA policy (a little), what this will do is force NCDOT to spend Federal funding on US 64 that they now won't have for other corridors, because it comes from their normal Federal highway funding allotment.

To add to this, the real reason I-87 was heavily pushed is to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virgina. Despite the official spin regarding the idea of linking Raleigh and Norfolk, it was done to benefit eastern NC. I-87's routing makes this blatantly obvious. As I've mentioned before, it's already spawned I-587, which serves Wilson & Greenville, and there's still the push to turn the NC-11/US-13 corridor between Kinston and Bethel into an interstate, the idea being to link the Global Transpark and Greenville to Hampton Roads.

Of all the future interstates in eastern NC, I-42 and I-795's extension to I-40 should be top priority IMO. Nearly half of I-87's corridor is already a freeway and the entire length of Future I-587 is a freeway. Meanwhile, US-70 carries a good deal of truck traffic as well as regional & tourist traffic and the parts of US-70 that have not yet been upgraded or bypassed have a lot of safety issues. US-117 has also seen an increase in trucks lately, especially since the Enviva wood pellet manufacturing plant opened near I-40 at Exit 355. US-117 doesn't have as many safety issues as US-70, but it can get pretty congested between the Mar-Mac area of Goldsboro and I-795, which would be bypassed by I-795's extension. The current bridges over the Neuse River tend to get flooded out easily and having the new alignment section of I-795 provide a second crossing of Neuse River would be ideal and help prevent the southern half of Wayne County from being cutoff every time there's a flood.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 20, 2017, 03:24:49 PM
If Interstate 87 does not go beyond Williamston, then it really should have been given an even second digit. Or maybe it could have just stayed US 64.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 20, 2017, 04:23:55 PM
If Interstate 87 does not go beyond Williamston, then it really should have been given an even second digit. Or maybe it could have just stayed US 64.

The blame for this can be squarely laid at two sets of feet: NCDOT, which opted for the odd number to begin with in order to avoid duplication with state routes in the general vicinity (a tactic shot down by AASHTO and FHWA in short order), and AASHTO/FHWA, for buying into the "odd number" rationale -- but almost inexplicably changed the number from the NCDOT-sought "89" down to "87".  IMHO, it should have been an even-numbered route to begin with, as the overall latitudinal (E-W) "stretch" is somewhat longer than that of the longitudinal (N-S) one.  Any unused even number from 46 to 62 that didn't have in-state US route conflicts would have worked fine (pulling at least 50 and 52 out of the mix).  To me, snagging a number that's already in use elsewhere is like a person looking for a spouse who limits their prospect pool to those who are already married ("hey, at least they've got experience!).  :)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on June 20, 2017, 04:33:34 PM
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Bcthurki on June 20, 2017, 04:42:58 PM
I bet NC state officials submitted to Google that I-87 and I-587 be labeled. Everyone uses GPS nowadays, and it will cause folks to start calling the roads by their interstate number. Eventually the new numbers will become mainstream, and they won't even have to officially designate them.

I work in traffic operations for NCDOT.  We in fact, did not.  We have been asking google for months to remove I-587 and now will have to do the same with I-87.  They don't respond to requests for up to 6 months straight.  So it will probably be there for a while.

I would dare say it is someone in the roadgeek community that submitted it to google.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 20, 2017, 04:52:03 PM
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.

No -- the even numbers initially being considered (46, 48, 54, 56) all conflicted with state highways in the vicinity of the Raleigh-Norfolk alignment -- and while there's no state law forbidding numerical duplication, NCDOT figured that they would have to re-designate one of the conflicting state highways, which would pose issues for folks with addresses along that route that referenced the route number.  So they came up with the original "89" plan, because state route 89 was well west of Raleigh and didn't pose any particular conflict issues.  Then AASHTO went and pulled "87" out of one of their orifices, ostensibly because the eastern section along US 17 was a little more in line with the present I-87 than with I-89 ("yeah....that's the ticket!").  Surprisingly, they didn't choose I-97 -- even though there's a miniscule chance of connecting those two routes' sections -- but certainly more than with either I-87 or I-89!  Convoluted reasoning, laughable number!   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on June 20, 2017, 05:01:19 PM
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.

No -- the even numbers initially being considered (46, 48, 54, 56) all conflicted with state highways in the vicinity of the Raleigh-Norfolk alignment -- and while there's no state law forbidding numerical duplication, NCDOT figured that they would have to re-designate one of the conflicting state highways, which would pose issues for folks with addresses along that route that referenced the route number.  So they came up with the original "89" plan, because state route 89 was well west of Raleigh and didn't pose any particular conflict issues.  Then AASHTO went and pulled "87" out of one of their orifices, ostensibly because the eastern section along US 17 was a little more in line with the present I-87 than with I-89 ("yeah....that's the ticket!").  Surprisingly, they didn't choose I-97 -- even though there's a miniscule chance of connecting those two routes' sections -- but certainly more than with either I-87 or I-89!  Convoluted reasoning, laughable number!   

I may have been trying to assign too much logic to NCDOT. Though this does beg the question of NC 73/I-73, especially since NC 73 crosses what will eventually be apart of the I-73/74 multiplex.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 05:03:17 PM
In Virginia the US 17 corridor would definitely be the preferred alignment if they really insist on building this stupid thing.

Yes it would be the alignment used, as it is all on limited-access right-of-way between the state line and I-64.  That means that it would be upgraded to a freeway by installing bridges to replace at-grade intersections.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 05:09:58 PM
It's not.  Because Future Interstate designation does not give access to any additional pots of Federal funding.  If anything, given Federal law (mostly) and FHWA policy (a little), what this will do is force NCDOT to spend Federal funding on US 64 that they now won't have for other corridors, because it comes from their normal Federal highway funding allotment.
To add to this, the real reason I-87 was heavily pushed is to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virgina. Despite the official spin regarding the idea of linking Raleigh and Norfolk, it was done to benefit eastern NC. I-87's routing makes this blatantly obvious.

Which I don't understand, because eastern NC is mostly rural with a collection of small towns and a few small cities.  They already have two decent high-speed 4-lane divided highways, in US-17 and NC-168/US-158, and the only thing needed on those highways over the next 20 years are some selected bridge replacements and a handful of interchange additions.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on June 20, 2017, 05:19:10 PM
It's not.  Because Future Interstate designation does not give access to any additional pots of Federal funding.  If anything, given Federal law (mostly) and FHWA policy (a little), what this will do is force NCDOT to spend Federal funding on US 64 that they now won't have for other corridors, because it comes from their normal Federal highway funding allotment.
To add to this, the real reason I-87 was heavily pushed is to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virgina. Despite the official spin regarding the idea of linking Raleigh and Norfolk, it was done to benefit eastern NC. I-87's routing makes this blatantly obvious.

Which I don't understand, because eastern NC is mostly rural with a collection of small towns and a few small cities.  They already have two decent high-speed 4-lane divided highways, in US-17 and NC-168/US-158, and the only thing needed on those highways over the next 20 years are some selected bridge replacements and a handful of interchange additions.

You have to understand a bit about North Carolina history to see why the Eastern part of the state receives preferential treatment (or at least better treatment than it would otherwise get). The base of power in the state has historically resided in eastern NC, Charlotte's emergence as a power is still REALLY recent in the state's history. The vast majority of the state's governors have come from Eastern North Carolina and until the decline of the tobacco crop, it was the hub of economic activity in the state.

A lot of money and influence are still in eastern NC and I-42 and 87 are attempts to recapture some of the region's past economy glory. Though I would argue that there is a benefit to connecting Raleigh to Hampton Roads but it'll mostly come for Hampton Roads since they'll have easier access to Raleigh and Charlotte vacationers.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2017, 06:02:05 PM
A lot of money and influence are still in eastern NC and I-42 and 87 are attempts to recapture some of the region's past economy glory. Though I would argue that there is a benefit to connecting Raleigh to Hampton Roads but it'll mostly come for Hampton Roads since they'll have easier access to Raleigh and Charlotte vacationers.

To be fair, I think it was a very smart move by eastern NC (specifically the US-70 Corridor Commission) to push for US-70 to become what is now Future I-42, as well as I-795's extension. US-70 has been long overdue for an upgrade. It not only benefits the locals, but having a freeway from Raleigh to Morehead City would make it safer for beach and truck traffic as well. I'm sure many people in the Triangle would love to have a 70mph highway to the Crystal Coast. Linking I-795 with I-40 would create a high-speed shortcut between the Port of Wilmington and I-95, as well as improved crossings over the flood-prone Neuse River.

As for the benefit of linking Raleigh and Norfolk, the US-58/I-95/US-64 route is shorter which, again, boils down to it's intended purpose of linking eastern NC to the Port of Virginia.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on June 20, 2017, 06:03:20 PM
I bet NC state officials submitted to Google that I-87 and I-587 be labeled. Everyone uses GPS nowadays, and it will cause folks to start calling the roads by their interstate number. Eventually the new numbers will become mainstream, and they won't even have to officially designate them.

I work in traffic operations for NCDOT.  We in fact, did not.  We have been asking google for months to remove I-587 and now will have to do the same with I-87.  They don't respond to requests for up to 6 months straight.  So it will probably be there for a while.

I would dare say it is someone in the roadgeek community that submitted it to google.
Would you happen to know when NCDOT plans to sign I-87, the approved part from I-40 to the end of the Knightdale Bypass, now that I-495 has been officially decommissioned? Google Maps will probably remove the I-87 shields from US 64 soon after.  :D
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on June 20, 2017, 06:19:31 PM
In Virginia the US 17 corridor would definitely be the preferred alignment if they really insist on building this stupid thing.

Yes it would be the alignment used, as it is all on limited-access right-of-way between the state line and I-64.  That means that it would be upgraded to a freeway by installing bridges to replace at-grade intersections.
If, and that is a pretty big If, the highway gets built in VA (good luck letting the environmentalists to build a freeway through the Great Dismal Swamp) plus the fact VA is not too keen on it anyway (if the tone here is correct) I take I-464 would become I-87 to keep continuity.

Plus if there is to be a Raliegh to Norfolk corridor why not just upgrade the US 258 corridor into Holland, VA (using the old VA 189 in VA) and save the east then north then east again and north as following US 64 to Williston and then up the US 17 corridor into Hampton Roads.  This would be more direct and cut time off as well as it would deter from US 64 from Tarboro and head North but Northeast.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Thing 342 on June 20, 2017, 06:29:15 PM
It would actually require a lot more as you'd have to find a way to get a new alignment route from US 17 to NC/VA 168.
A lot less construction in VA though!
Not so sure; Large portions of the VA-168 freeway (most importantly, the high bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway) are not up to interstate standards. Plus, you'd have to replace a mile-long stoplighted section at the southern end.

I imagine that any improvements on VA's end toward a Raleigh - HR corridor would likely involve upgrades to US-58.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 06:54:17 PM
Which I don't understand, because eastern NC is mostly rural with a collection of small towns and a few small cities.  They already have two decent high-speed 4-lane divided highways, in US-17 and NC-168/US-158, and the only thing needed on those highways over the next 20 years are some selected bridge replacements and a handful of interchange additions.
You have to understand a bit about North Carolina history to see why the Eastern part of the state receives preferential treatment (or at least better treatment than it would otherwise get). The base of power in the state has historically resided in eastern NC, Charlotte's emergence as a power is still REALLY recent in the state's history. The vast majority of the state's governors have come from Eastern North Carolina and until the decline of the tobacco crop, it was the hub of economic activity in the state.

A lot of money and influence are still in eastern NC and I-42 and 87 are attempts to recapture some of the region's past economy glory. Though I would argue that there is a benefit to connecting Raleigh to Hampton Roads but it'll mostly come for Hampton Roads since they'll have easier access to Raleigh and Charlotte vacationers.

As a Virginian I hear little if any real interest in the Hampton Roads area for this I-87.  US-17 between the state line and I-64 is now a very capable 4-lane highway, part freeway and the rest is at-grade expressway.

Eastern North Carolina is welcome to dream, but I just don't see Interstate warrants for either of those highways, when considering the $30 million or more cost per mile of rural Interstate highway.  I-87 would need at least 100 miles of new location highway, and I-42 would need at least 120 miles of new location highway.  So that would be $6.6 billion right there, fantastically expensive.  That doesn't include the cost of upgrading the sections that already are freeway.  From a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, it fails big time.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 07:07:41 PM
It would actually require a lot more as you'd have to find a way to get a new alignment route from US 17 to NC/VA 168.
A lot less construction in VA though!
Not so sure; Large portions of the VA-168 freeway (most importantly, the high bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway) are not up to interstate standards. Plus, you'd have to replace a mile-long stoplighted section at the southern end.

The bridge has at least a 60 mph design speed, and full shoulders, I don't see why it would not meet Interstate standards.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA168_CA_Bridge.jpg
2,750-foot-long high-level bridge with 65 feet of vertical navigational clearance over the Intracoastal Waterway / Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal. The approach spans pass over adjacent wetlands. Looking north. This is part of the Great Bridge Bypass that was opened about 1980.

Other than the last mile which is an expressway, I see only one issue on VA-168 that does not meet Interstate standards -- on the tolled segment, the shoulders and roadsides are too narrow, about 8 feet and 10 feet respectively.  I would recommend widening them to 10 feet and 20 feet respectively, before designating as an Interstate.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA168_ICR_N_0501T.jpg

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA168_Chesa_Expwy.html
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 07:16:31 PM
Depends on how they routed such an alignment.

Like a direct route between Windsor, NC and existing US-17 at the VA border?  That would cut maybe 10 to 12 miles off of the current US-17 route, but then it would not pass near anything but a few small towns.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: plain on June 20, 2017, 07:23:22 PM
I imagine that any improvements on VA's end toward a Raleigh - HR corridor would likely involve upgrades to US-58.

Agreed. Plus anyone west of Raleigh (Charlotte, Atlanta, hell even Durham) would likely continue up I-85 directly to US 58 to reach Hampton Roads anyway, whether I-87 is built as planned or not, as that is clearly to shorter route for that traffic.

I'm just wondering why NC wants so many interstates. Clearly they've been upgrading roads or bypassing them without the interstate designations for years (long stretches of freeways on US routes 1, 64, 220 pre interstate, 264). I do agree that the state should concentrate on US 70 though. Eastern NC now has a continuous 4 lane connection to Hampton Roads (ironically the last 2-lane section was in Virginia on US 17) so I'm not sure why the ports thing is necessarily an issue.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: vdeane on June 20, 2017, 08:41:03 PM
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.

No -- the even numbers initially being considered (46, 48, 54, 56) all conflicted with state highways in the vicinity of the Raleigh-Norfolk alignment -- and while there's no state law forbidding numerical duplication, NCDOT figured that they would have to re-designate one of the conflicting state highways, which would pose issues for folks with addresses along that route that referenced the route number.  So they came up with the original "89" plan, because state route 89 was well west of Raleigh and didn't pose any particular conflict issues.  Then AASHTO went and pulled "87" out of one of their orifices, ostensibly because the eastern section along US 17 was a little more in line with the present I-87 than with I-89 ("yeah....that's the ticket!").  Surprisingly, they didn't choose I-97 -- even though there's a miniscule chance of connecting those two routes' sections -- but certainly more than with either I-87 or I-89!  Convoluted reasoning, laughable number!   
But the interstate system is the more important (and I'd dare say higher up on the hierarchy).  The state routes should bow down to the interstates and show their respect, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 20, 2017, 10:07:25 PM
I suspect that NCDOT sought an odd number because of the possibility of extending I-87 down US 1 towards Rockingham at some point in the future.

No -- the even numbers initially being considered (46, 48, 54, 56) all conflicted with state highways in the vicinity of the Raleigh-Norfolk alignment -- and while there's no state law forbidding numerical duplication, NCDOT figured that they would have to re-designate one of the conflicting state highways, which would pose issues for folks with addresses along that route that referenced the route number.  So they came up with the original "89" plan, because state route 89 was well west of Raleigh and didn't pose any particular conflict issues.  Then AASHTO went and pulled "87" out of one of their orifices, ostensibly because the eastern section along US 17 was a little more in line with the present I-87 than with I-89 ("yeah....that's the ticket!").  Surprisingly, they didn't choose I-97 -- even though there's a miniscule chance of connecting those two routes' sections -- but certainly more than with either I-87 or I-89!  Convoluted reasoning, laughable number!   
But the interstate system is the more important (and I'd dare say higher up on the hierarchy).  The state routes should bow down to the interstates and show their respect, not the other way around.

While I can see NCDOT's point regarding not pissing off state taxpayers (and registered voters!) be making some of them change their mailing addresses, there is a concept of "the greater good" at play here -- and maintaining a cohesive numbering system (which, at least IMHO, calls for minimizing unnecessary duplications) for a national network needs prioritization.  Sometimes states walk a thin line between serving the status quo regarding their citizenry and looking at the big picture through a regional or even national lens; in this instance, they arbitrarily came down on one side of the line and in the end (or so far) no one really came out unscathed. 

Maybe this'll also serve as a lesson to AASHTO -- no open bar at SCOURN meetings! :poke:   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2017, 10:47:06 PM
I'm just wondering why NC wants so many interstates. Clearly they've been upgrading roads or bypassing them without the interstate designations for years (long stretches of freeways on US routes 1, 64, 220 pre interstate, 264). I do agree that the state should concentrate on US 70 though. Eastern NC now has a continuous 4 lane connection to Hampton Roads (ironically the last 2-lane section was in Virginia on US 17) so I'm not sure why the ports thing is necessarily an issue.

It's mainly for marketing purposes. There's a widely held belief that companies will not locate to an area without nearby interstate access. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. That's why Greenville pushed for US-264 to become what is now Future I-587 and for NC-11/US-13 between Kinston and Bethel to become an interstate. Being that Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC, as well as it's hub, they would be able to market themselves as having interstate access to I-95 and Raleigh, and the Port of Virginia. Without I-87, there would be no interstate to Hampton Roads from which Greenville and Kinston can connect to.

Kinston wanted I-42 and NC-11/US-13 for similar reasons, particularly to help revitalize the Global Transpark (http://www.ncgtp.com/ (http://www.ncgtp.com/)). The rest of the towns/cities along I-42's corridor wanted the interstate designation because they saw it as a way of making US-70's upgrade a higher priority because of the aforementioned safety issues.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2017, 10:58:47 PM
In Virginia the US 17 corridor would definitely be the preferred alignment if they really insist on building this stupid thing.

Yes it would be the alignment used, as it is all on limited-access right-of-way between the state line and I-64.  That means that it would be upgraded to a freeway by installing bridges to replace at-grade intersections.
If, and that is a pretty big If, the highway gets built in VA (good luck letting the environmentalists to build a freeway through the Great Dismal Swamp) plus the fact VA is not too keen on it anyway (if the tone here is correct) I take I-464 would become I-87 to keep continuity.

VA isn't keen on any new interstates, period. If I-87 does somehow make it into VA, then I agree that it would make sense for it to replace I-464 and end at I-264.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2017, 11:05:48 PM
Eastern North Carolina is welcome to dream, but I just don't see Interstate warrants for either of those highways, when considering the $30 million or more cost per mile of rural Interstate highway.  I-87 would need at least 100 miles of new location highway, and I-42 would need at least 120 miles of new location highway.  So that would be $6.6 billion right there, fantastically expensive.  That doesn't include the cost of upgrading the sections that already are freeway.  From a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, it fails big time.

I agree with your post regarding I-87. However, I disagree that I-42 is a fail for reasons I've previously mentioned.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 20, 2017, 11:12:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway
and I-42 would need at least 120 miles of new location highway.

No it doesn't.  Have you not noticed that most of I-42 will be a direct upgrade of existing US 70?  At this point, about the only new alignment would be the Kingston bypass and from Havelock down (though IMO, most of that "North Carteret Bypass" is overkill).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 11:48:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway
and I-42 would need at least 120 miles of new location highway.
No it doesn't.  Have you not noticed that most of I-42 will be a direct upgrade of existing US 70?  At this point, about the only new alignment would be the Kingston bypass and from Havelock down (though IMO, most of that "North Carteret Bypass" is overkill).

Looks like at least 120 miles of nonlimited-access highway ... correct?  Upgrading a highway like that to freeway standards means buying access controls, building service roads, building overpass bridges, building interchanges, correcting any alignment deficiencies, replacing old bridges.  Near the same cost per mile as a new location freeway.  Example:  VA I-95 between Jarratt and VA-35.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NE2 on June 21, 2017, 01:22:25 AM
Looks like at least 120 miles of nonlimited-access highway ... correct?
Hell no. 120 miles is the total distance from I-40 to Havelock. 60 whole miles of that is freeway.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 04:58:33 AM
Looks like at least 120 miles of nonlimited-access highway ... correct?
Hell no. 120 miles is the total distance from I-40 to Havelock. 60 whole miles of that is freeway.

OK, I get 140 miles from I-40 to Morehead City.  So 80 miles of miles of nonlimited-access highway, still at least $2.4 billion to upgrade and/or bypass.  Still doesn't seem remotely warranted from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint or just finding the money period.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: VTGoose on June 21, 2017, 09:22:06 AM

I work in traffic operations for NCDOT.  We in fact, did not.  We have been asking google for months to remove I-587 and now will have to do the same with I-87.  They don't respond to requests for up to 6 months straight.  So it will probably be there for a while.

I would dare say it is someone in the roadgeek community that submitted it to google.

Google may do great things but it is the worst when it comes to customer service. Being "open" is one thing but when there are no controls on who can submit what you get things like errant route numbers. Here at work, we "claimed" our business -- Virginia Tech -- and sent in post cards (yes, POST CARDS!) to Google to verify that we were the valid "owners" of university information on search results, maps, etc. That didn't prevent random people from changing contact phone numbers or adding (sometimes wrong) information to the Google map covering the campus.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 09:33:42 AM
Looks like at least 120 miles of nonlimited-access highway ... correct?
Hell no. 120 miles is the total distance from I-40 to Havelock. 60 whole miles of that is freeway.

OK, I get 140 miles from I-40 to Morehead City.  So 80 miles of miles of nonlimited-access highway, still at least $2.4 billion to upgrade and/or bypass.  Still doesn't seem remotely warranted from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint or just finding the money period.

Have you ever driven US-70? I grew up in Wayne County and lived there for 14 years and I lost count of how many horrific crashes that have happened there, not counting those that happened after I left in 2009. I used to commute on US-70 between Goldsboro and Clayton and I hated it. Whenever I went to Raleigh, I took I-795 to US-264 just to avoid it. Sure it was more mileage, but it had less traffic, no stoplights and a 70mph speed limit the whole way.

Before the new US-70 Bypass opened, Goldsboro was a huge bottleneck due to the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the numerous traffic lights didn't help matters. That bypass was desperately needed.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 10:44:21 AM
OK, I get 140 miles from I-40 to Morehead City.  So 80 miles of miles of nonlimited-access highway, still at least $2.4 billion to upgrade and/or bypass.  Still doesn't seem remotely warranted from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint or just finding the money period.
Have you ever driven US-70? I grew up in Wayne County and lived there for 14 years and I lost count of how many horrific crashes that have happened there, not counting those that happened after I left in 2009. I used to commute on US-70 between Goldsboro and Clayton and I hated it. Whenever I went to Raleigh, I took I-795 to US-264 just to avoid it. Sure it was more mileage, but it had less traffic, no stoplights and a 70mph speed limit the whole way.

Before the new US-70 Bypass opened, Goldsboro was a huge bottleneck due to the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the numerous traffic lights didn't help matters. That bypass was desperately needed.

In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.

Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 01:45:05 PM
I work in traffic operations for NCDOT.  We in fact, did not.  We have been asking google for months to remove I-587 and now will have to do the same with I-87.  They don't respond to requests for up to 6 months straight.  So it will probably be there for a while.

I would dare say it is someone in the roadgeek community that submitted it to google.
Google may do great things but it is the worst when it comes to customer service. Being "open" is one thing but when there are no controls on who can submit what you get things like errant route numbers. Here at work, we "claimed" our business -- Virginia Tech -- and sent in post cards (yes, POST CARDS!) to Google to verify that we were the valid "owners" of university information on search results, maps, etc. That didn't prevent random people from changing contact phone numbers or adding (sometimes wrong) information to the Google map covering the campus.

Bruce in Blacksburg

I wonder what is with the OnStar Nav system... it calls Forest Hill Avenue near where I live, both by that name and as VA 683.  It hasn't been numbered or a state route since 1970 when that part of Chesterfield County was annexed by the City of Richmond.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 04:42:28 PM
OK, I get 140 miles from I-40 to Morehead City.  So 80 miles of miles of nonlimited-access highway, still at least $2.4 billion to upgrade and/or bypass.  Still doesn't seem remotely warranted from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint or just finding the money period.
Have you ever driven US-70? I grew up in Wayne County and lived there for 14 years and I lost count of how many horrific crashes that have happened there, not counting those that happened after I left in 2009. I used to commute on US-70 between Goldsboro and Clayton and I hated it. Whenever I went to Raleigh, I took I-795 to US-264 just to avoid it. Sure it was more mileage, but it had less traffic, no stoplights and a 70mph speed limit the whole way.

Before the new US-70 Bypass opened, Goldsboro was a huge bottleneck due to the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the numerous traffic lights didn't help matters. That bypass was desperately needed.

In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.

Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.

If US-70 was not as important of a corridor as it is, I would agree that spot improvements would suffice. But it simply carries too much traffic for spot improvements to handle, and it is already part of the national Strategic Highway Network, not to mention there's two military bases along the corridor (Seymour Johnson AFB & Cherry Point MCAS). There were already plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway before the US-70 Corridor Commission decided to begin pushing for an interstate designation in 2013.

Their website has more info: https://www.super70corridor.com/ (https://www.super70corridor.com/)

Now, US-17 is a corridor that could easily be handled with spot improvements. It has lighter traffic and doesn't have as many safety issues as US-70, at least not the part that's supposed to become I-87.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 21, 2017, 04:53:41 PM
In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.

Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.
If US-70 was not as important of a corridor as it is, I would agree that spot improvements would suffice. But it simply carries too much traffic for spot improvements to handle, and it is already part of the national Strategic Highway Network, not to mention there's two military bases along the corridor (Seymour Johnson AFB & Cherry Point MCAS). There were already plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway before the US-70 Corridor Commission decided to begin pushing for an interstate designation in 2013.

Their website has more info: https://www.super70corridor.com/ (https://www.super70corridor.com/)

The problem is the cost, which that website doesn't specifically estimate.  It could easily be $3 to $4 billion, and I seriously doubt that that kind of funding can be obtained.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 04:55:52 PM
In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.

Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.
If US-70 was not as important of a corridor as it is, I would agree that spot improvements would suffice. But it simply carries too much traffic for spot improvements to handle, and it is already part of the national Strategic Highway Network, not to mention there's two military bases along the corridor (Seymour Johnson AFB & Cherry Point MCAS). There were already plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway before the US-70 Corridor Commission decided to begin pushing for an interstate designation in 2013.

Their website has more info: https://www.super70corridor.com/ (https://www.super70corridor.com/)

The problem is the cost, which that website doesn't specifically estimate.  It could easily be $3 to $4 billion, and I seriously doubt that that kind of funding can be obtained.

Oh, I agree about the funding.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 21, 2017, 05:21:54 PM
In certain places the US-70 highway needs improvements, such as building an interchange to replace certain at-grade intersections, adding a bypass, extending a bypass, access management and other safety improvements.

Providing an Interstate highway from end to end is a whole other matter, though.
If US-70 was not as important of a corridor as it is, I would agree that spot improvements would suffice. But it simply carries too much traffic for spot improvements to handle, and it is already part of the national Strategic Highway Network, not to mention there's two military bases along the corridor (Seymour Johnson AFB & Cherry Point MCAS). There were already plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway before the US-70 Corridor Commission decided to begin pushing for an interstate designation in 2013.

Their website has more info: https://www.super70corridor.com/ (https://www.super70corridor.com/)

The problem is the cost, which that website doesn't specifically estimate.  It could easily be $3 to $4 billion, and I seriously doubt that that kind of funding can be obtained.

Oh, I agree about the funding.

Which likely means the US 70/I-42 project will be done as a series of SIU's intended to enhance specific areas (Wilsons Mills/Selma, Kinston, etc.) with the I-42 aspect accomplished by stringing together these projects along with relatively minor upgrades of the freeway west of New Bern -- plus what has already been done.  The more problematic area will probably be from New Bern east, including the already-challenged Havelock bypass, requiring significant outlays for route alterations and/or any mitigation that might be necessary. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2017, 09:24:44 PM
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but I-87 is now shown on Google Maps from the current east end of I-495 to I-95
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 21, 2017, 09:36:52 PM
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but I-87 is now shown on Google Maps from the current east end of I-495 to I-95

Yes, it's been mentioned in the other threads... it is wrong.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2017, 09:55:02 PM
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 22, 2017, 02:24:47 AM
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.

AASHTO begs to differ -- although some states, including NC, elect to treat those administrative rules as suggestions only, as evidenced by US 117 being signed on its old alignment parallel to I-795. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 22, 2017, 06:48:50 AM
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.

AASHTO begs to differ -- although some states, including NC, elect to treat those administrative rules as suggestions only, as evidenced by US 117 being signed on its old alignment parallel to I-795.

AASHTO approved moving US-117 back to it's old alignment.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRNDecisiononNCAM2008Resubmissions.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRNDecisiononNCAM2008Resubmissions.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 22, 2017, 07:16:59 AM
^ THey violated their own policies in doing so, but yes they did.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on June 22, 2017, 08:14:10 AM
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.

AASHTO begs to differ -- although some states, including NC, elect to treat those administrative rules as suggestions only, as evidenced by US 117 being signed on its old alignment parallel to I-795. 
It would not be the first as US 44 in CT was once signed on former I-86 (now I-84) and later removed and put back on its former alignment.

VA did the same with US 13 being on I-64, as they later reinstated it back on Military Highway through Norfolk and Chesapeake as it was originally before the interstate was constructed.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 22, 2017, 09:01:07 AM
Quote
VA did the same with US 13 being on I-64, as they later reinstated it back on Military Highway through Norfolk and Chesapeake as it was originally before the interstate was constructed.

Somewhat different case.  Military Hwy was an important arterial route in its own right, even with I-64 built.  Not the same situation with US 117.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NE2 on June 22, 2017, 01:40:18 PM
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 22, 2017, 03:45:04 PM
Whenever I-87 (and I-42 and I-587), I think the existing US routes they are replacing should be reassigned to their old routes where ever they can.

AASHTO begs to differ -- although some states, including NC, elect to treat those administrative rules as suggestions only, as evidenced by US 117 being signed on its old alignment parallel to I-795.

AASHTO approved moving US-117 back to it's old alignment.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRNDecisiononNCAM2008Resubmissions.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRNDecisiononNCAM2008Resubmissions.pdf)
^ THey violated their own policies in doing so, but yes they did.
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.

Ok then -- if AASHTO is handling the US route reinstatement issue on a case-by-case basis -- and NCDOT's internal policies don't permit such an action, then just who is instigating the moves for US routes being reinstated on their pre-freeway alignments?  I would venture a guess that it's the local interests and/or communities who, ironically, likely spearheaded the move(s) for Interstate status to begin with!  Nothing like having two parallel signed facilities, one at ground level for local business access & egress and the other keeping through traffic away from city streets, serving your town -- particularly if one's a longstanding U.S. route and the other's an Interstate; best of both worlds in terms of commerce and efficiency.  And probably one of the primary reasons new Interstate corridors have become part of the NC planning process.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2017, 03:45:57 PM
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.

AASHTO wasn't consulted about it to start, which is how they got around it.   :spin:

The other sections where US 220 does continue to overlap are because those have been through AASHTO, mostly all before I-73 existed.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 22, 2017, 04:31:48 PM
@sparker:

I was referring to AASHTO when I said they're violating their own policies by moving the U.S. route back to its original alignment.

Regarding your other question/concern, private citizens/entities/groups/businesses/etc etc are *NOT* allowed to submit route change requests to AASHTO.  Those must come from the respective state DOTs (or equivalents in some states cases).  But you're probably right in that it's local concerns spearheading the push.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 22, 2017, 04:48:09 PM
@sparker:

I was referring to AASHTO when I said they're violating their own policies by moving the U.S. route back to its original alignment.

Regarding your other question/concern, private citizens/entities/groups/businesses/etc etc are *NOT* allowed to submit route change requests to AASHTO.  Those must come from the respective state DOTs (or equivalents in some states cases).  But you're probably right in that it's local concerns spearheading the push.

I didn't think that private concerns -- even regional action organizations -- would submit requests directly to AASHTO; that is reserved for DOT's (as per AASHTO's own extended name!).  But such groups, if allied with local governments and/or MPO's, can -- and if recent history is any indication, do -- put a substantial amount of pressure on those DOT's to channel their requests upstream, so to speak. 

I had the context of the "policy violation" issue a bit jumbled -- but I suppose if anyone is capable of reversing course midstream, it's AASHTO -- or at least the SCOURN subsection, which has hardly proven to be the model of consistency.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 05:04:28 PM
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.
AASHTO wasn't consulted about it to start, which is how they got around it.   :spin:

The other sections where US 220 does continue to overlap are because those have been through AASHTO, mostly all before I-73 existed.

I would favor that practice.  I would like to see US-220 moved back to the original highway between Bedford, PA and Williamsport, PA.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 08:30:45 PM
AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.

They also didn't approve removing US 70-401 off the Raleigh Beltline AFAIK.

North Carolina has a history of returning the US routes to their original alignments from interstates:

North Carolina has a long history of returning US routes from interstate overlays...

The ones people here are most familiar with:  US 117 and I-795; I-440 and US 70-401; US 220 through Ellerbe

There was also a substantial return for US 70 (Greensboro to Hillsborough)
US 64 Conover to Statesville
US 29 on Bypasses of both Charlotte and Salisbury
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2017, 11:36:55 AM
Actually screw AAHSTO in this case.  Some roads should be on their original alignments IMO as they were moved onto the freeway only cause the interstate was not yet conceived and now that its there it can go back.

US 220 now with I-99 had Buddy Boy thought of it ten years sooner, US 220 would go through Bedford, Claysburg, Duncansville, Altoona, and Tyrone as I-99 would solely gotten the freeway.

That is what I hope in AR-MO with US 71, I would hate to see them put US 71 on the completed Bell Vista Bypass (if it ever gets done in this century that is), I hope that US 71 gets some form of an identity still as most is overlapped with I-49 now.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 23, 2017, 06:44:03 PM
I don't see what's wrong with "case by case" decisions. It all depends on the needs of local traffic. Sometimes it makes good sense to move the US number back to the old route, and sometimes it doesn't.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 23, 2017, 06:58:30 PM
I don't see what's wrong with "case by case" decisions. It all depends on the needs of local traffic. Sometimes it makes good sense to move the US number back to the old route, and sometimes it doesn't.

I agree. Putting US-117 back on it's old alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson is one case that I agree with.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on June 24, 2017, 09:08:51 AM
Yes, having a US route co-signed with an interstate serving the same areas is an exception that should be made as the local road does is a regional importance.  Plus with US routes being submissive to interstates it might as well have a lower standard road. 

In essence some concurrencies are redundant to have.  Look at US 40 in both Kansas and Missouri, the US highway there is with I-70 for several hundred miles.  Though apples and oranges as Kansas and North Carolina have a difference in the way the population is scattered so having US 40 independent from the interstate in Kansas would not serve the locals as US 117 would in rural NC as the traffic counts are not as great.  I only mentioned that as an example that even with good reason US 40's long overlap with its companion interstate does appear useless.  Now, in Missouri that US route to be independent could be useful as I-70 is lined with a lot of towns along the way with locals traveling about, so having US 40 on its original course would be feasible to have.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 24, 2017, 01:19:07 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: 1 on June 24, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.

I thought Maine was.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 24, 2017, 02:22:11 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.

I thought Maine was.

Wisconsin is also a charter member of the multiplex club.  Out here in CA we use the agricultural inspection stations to confiscate multiplex ideas before they infect our planning efforts! :sombrero:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on June 24, 2017, 03:06:45 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.

North Carolina isn't even the winner in the south...

Georgia would get the blue ribbon...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 24, 2017, 03:21:03 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.


To their credit, they've been trying to move away from that. US-117, US-17 and US-220 are recent examples.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on June 24, 2017, 03:41:59 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.

I thought Maine was.

Not even close.

If NCDOT were transplanted to Maine, US 1 would be multiplexed with I-95 between Kittery and Portland and then I-295 between Kittery and Brunswick.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: 1 on June 24, 2017, 03:49:40 PM
North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.

I thought Maine was.

Not even close.

If NCDOT were transplanted to Maine, US 1 would be multiplexed with I-95 between Kittery and Portland and then I-295 between Kittery and Brunswick.

4/11/100/202, 11/17/100/202, 17/100/201/202, 11/100/201, 8/42/148/201A, 15/202/395, 4/5/202, 11/35/302, the list goes on...

(100 and 202 could be deleted with almost no effect.)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 24, 2017, 04:00:05 PM
I'd give Maine the edge.  Their volume of redundant state route concurrencies dwarfs anything North Carolina has, even at the U.S. route level.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 03:14:20 PM
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)

Quote
New projects include:

Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 29, 2017, 03:47:27 PM
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)

Quote
New projects include:

Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line

That would imply that the specific I-87 route (existing US 17) has been identified and that the ball's now in Virginia's court (via the City of Chesapeake) as to what's going to happen north of the state line.  It'll be interesting to see if they'll actually cooperate with this corridor concept.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2017, 04:13:56 PM
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)

Quote
New projects include:

Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line

Construction slated to start in 2027
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Finrod on June 29, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
Interesting that they're going to follow US 17 to the Virginia border instead of angling it northeast to meet Virginia SR 168.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 07:33:40 PM
Interesting that they're going to follow US 17 to the Virginia border instead of angling it northeast to meet Virginia SR 168.

It would be very expensive to do so and due to the sensitive wetlands there, it would undoubtedly draw fierce opposition and lawsuits from environmental groups, who would likely win the case since US-17 is already built. NCDOT pretty much has no choice but to use US-17.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 07:48:50 PM
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)

Quote
New projects include:

Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line

That would imply that the specific I-87 route (existing US 17) has been identified and that the ball's now in Virginia's court (via the City of Chesapeake) as to what's going to happen north of the state line.  It'll be interesting to see if they'll actually cooperate with this corridor concept.

I wouldn't count on it. Hampton Roads is in favor of I-87, but they're understandably focused on other major projects in the area. There is no support for I-87 at the state level, so my guess is that once the major issues in Hampton Roads have been taken care of (whenever that may be), they'll turn their attention to I-87 and hopefully I-87 will replace I-464.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 29, 2017, 08:14:34 PM
NCDOT updated their draft 2018-2027 STIP for Division 1, which includes upgrading a section of US-17 to interstate standards.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14022)

Quote
New projects include:

Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line

That would imply that the specific I-87 route (existing US 17) has been identified and that the ball's now in Virginia's court (via the City of Chesapeake) as to what's going to happen north of the state line.  It'll be interesting to see if they'll actually cooperate with this corridor concept.

I wouldn't count on it. Hampton Roads is in favor of I-87, but they're understandably focused on other major projects in the area. There is no support for I-87 at the state level, so my guess is that once the major issues in Hampton Roads have been taken care of (whenever that may be), they'll turn their attention to I-87 and hopefully I-87 will replace I-464.

It does appear that the most difficult segment of the likely VA routing, along Dominion Blvd., is at least well under way.  Except for the dicey condition of the pavement (if you can see the potholes and cracks on GSV, it's pretty bad!), much of the N-S section of 17 south of the Dominion curve appears to be upgradeable expressway with a limited amount of cross-traffic (probably due to the adjoining swamp).  Getting it physically done would neither be a cakewalk or a nightmare -- somewhere in between.  The most difficult task will be to convince Chesapeake, the local MPO, and VDOT that it is to their benefit to provide enhanced egress to southward points (despite their historical reluctance to do so) via the proposed I-87 (still don't like that number!) corridor.  At some point it's likely some local figure or another will echo our own Adam F. and wonder why US 58 wasn't selected for that purpose (at which point the blame scenario will likely resemble a circular firing squad!). 

Maybe the Interstate will stop at the state line, maybe it won't -- we'll all just have to wait and see.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: plain on June 29, 2017, 08:35:35 PM
I don't think the presence of I-87 would hinder any future plans for US 58, as the two routes would function in different ways really...

I-87 would mostly function as a connection from Eastern Carolina to Hampton Roads, as well as a connection from Eastern Carolina to Raleigh/Durham and points west.

I believe US 58 would still be the preferred choice for I-85 traffic to reach Hampton Roads, because of the distance advantage, plus in order to reach I-87 from I-85, one would have to use I-40 (and, depending on time of day, deal with the Research Park traffic) traveling in a southeastern direction first.

For I-95 traffic wishing to reach Hampton Roads I think US 58 also has the advantage here.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 29, 2017, 09:09:56 PM
I don't think the presence of I-87 would hinder any future plans for US 58, as the two routes would function in different ways really...

I-87 would mostly function as a connection from Eastern Carolina to Hampton Roads, as well as a connection from Eastern Carolina to Raleigh/Durham and points west.

I believe US 58 would still be the preferred choice for I-85 traffic to reach Hampton Roads, because of the distance advantage, plus in order to reach I-87 from I-85, one would have to use I-40 (and, depending on time of day, deal with the Research Park traffic) traveling in a southeastern direction first.

For I-95 traffic wishing to reach Hampton Roads I think US 58 also has the advantage here.

US 58 is the most direct (and logical) way to get from Hampton Roads to both southward I-95 and I-85.  However, it appears that VA (referring to both VDOT and the state legislature) hasn't expressed much in the way of interest in upgrading this route beyond what's on the ground at present (essentially a conventional 4-lane divided road with some in-town segments).  Right now -- as far as corridors under consideration for this purpose -- HPC 13/I-87 is pretty much the only game in town.  Like the old adage goes, you've got to be in it to win it -- and VA seems to have limited interest in developing additional rural Interstate mileage (e.g. the I-73 situation); that's a NC "thing"!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 30, 2017, 03:51:53 PM
Could Interstate 87 be built in Virginia without doing too much damage to the Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge? Infringing on the refuge would really get potential opponents up-in-arms.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on June 30, 2017, 04:03:02 PM
Could Interstate 87 be built in Virginia without doing too much damage to the Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge? Infringing on the refuge would really get potential opponents up-in-arms.

From current GSV (I haven't been on the road since about 2000) it looks like the swamp-dwelling section is a conventional 2+2, albeit with what looks like about 4' shoulders on either side; as the carriageways sit on a common berm, things could conceivably be shifted to avoid any additional egress into the swamp -- likely requiring a center median barrier.  The various bridges would likely have to be given a waiver or replaced, since there doesn't seem to be full shoulder width there.  It certainly isn't Interstate-grade by any means; but neither is it inconceivable that it could be brought up to at least minimal standards -- getting some terrain waivers (considering it is in the middle of a swamp) would help.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on June 30, 2017, 07:39:40 PM
Where the swamp impacts (and cost) would come up is in providing access to the land between the Canal and 17.  Resurrecting the old road is a non-starter because it was A) too narrow, and B) has mostly been converted to a bike/ped path, so you'd incur Section 104(f) impacts too if you try to change that.

Not really worth the cost, no matter what type of shiny route shield North Carolina businesses want to show off...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on June 30, 2017, 08:21:44 PM
Where the swamp impacts (and cost) would come up is in providing access to the land between the Canal and 17.  Resurrecting the old road is a non-starter because it was A) too narrow, and B) has mostly been converted to a bike/ped path, so you'd incur Section 104(f) impacts too if you try to change that.

Not really worth the cost, no matter what type of shiny route shield North Carolina businesses want to show off...

I believe as long as an interchange is put at Ballahack Rd and at either Cornland or Douglas Rd (with overpass at the other) then access can be maintained without having to reopen the old US 17 alignment more than it is right now.

Where it might also get complicated is the first mile south of the new VA 165 interchange where there is quite a bit of buildup so a couple interchanges are needed but there is not a ton of room anymore
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NE2 on June 30, 2017, 08:57:16 PM
Glencoe would need an overpass too for the house(s?) just east of the trail.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on June 30, 2017, 09:55:53 PM
Where the swamp impacts (and cost) would come up is in providing access to the land between the Canal and 17.  Resurrecting the old road is a non-starter because it was A) too narrow, and B) has mostly been converted to a bike/ped path, so you'd incur Section 104(f) impacts too if you try to change that.

Not really worth the cost, no matter what type of shiny route shield North Carolina businesses want to show off...
I believe as long as an interchange is put at Ballahack Rd and at either Cornland or Douglas Rd (with overpass at the other) then access can be maintained without having to reopen the old US 17 alignment more than it is right now.

Where it might also get complicated is the first mile south of the new VA 165 interchange where there is quite a bit of buildup so a couple interchanges are needed but there is not a ton of room anymore

VA US-17 north of Scenic Parkway is now a 4-lane freeway that I believe meets Interstate standards.

VA US-17 south of Scenic Parkway is an at-grade expressway, it has a limited access right-of-way.  That means the at-grade intersections would need to have overpass bridges built over US-17, and ramps added at some of them.  That is technically the only improvements that would be needed for Interstate standards.

An issue would be the huge farm of over 2,000 acres that spans both sides of US-17 on the southern part of the route, I recall that a Mr. Cartwright owns the farm and ranch.   The CTB granted him two or three breaks in the limited access line and the right-of-way fence in the 2005 upgrade project so that he can get his farm equipment across the highway.  This should not be allowed in Interstate standards, so this issue will need to be resolved in some manner that provides him access to both sides of the highway.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on June 30, 2017, 10:39:25 PM
Glencoe would need an overpass too for the house(s?) just east of the trail.

Accomplished by allowing access along the trail north from Ballahack, as about half of this is already open for access to a boat ramp
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on June 30, 2017, 11:51:26 PM
VA US-17 north of Scenic Parkway is now a 4-lane freeway that I believe meets Interstate standards.

VA US-17 south of Scenic Parkway is an at-grade expressway, it has a limited access right-of-way.  That means the at-grade intersections would need to have overpass bridges built over US-17, and ramps added at some of them.  That is technically the only improvements that would be needed for Interstate standards.



Grassfield Pkwy is still an at-grade intersection with stoplights just south of VA 165
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: TimQuiQui on July 17, 2017, 10:33:11 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/4wPUthI.png)

87 continues its westward creep on Google Maps. Now it's all the way to the 440 split!!!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on July 17, 2017, 10:43:38 PM
LOL! Wow. somebody had too much time smoking something.... :-D
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on July 17, 2017, 11:48:51 PM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick! 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on July 18, 2017, 07:01:35 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/4wPUthI.png)

87 continues its westward creep on Google Maps. Now it's all the way to the 440 split!!!

Pffft. I'm won't be inpressed until it takes over US-1 and goes to I-20 in SC. Go big or go home. :spin:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2017, 03:43:36 PM
Isn't there a thread called "Google Maps Sucks"? Apparently this symbolizes why that thread exists to the T!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Finrod on July 19, 2017, 11:31:21 PM
Pffft. I'm won't be inpressed until it takes over US-1 and goes to I-20 in SC. Go big or go home. :spin:

Well, if you really want to go big: take I-87 to I-20, multiplex it to Augusta, then take over the proposed I-14 route.  After all, I-85 in Alabama goes practically east-west, why not I-87?

(No, I'm not in the least bit serious here.)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on July 22, 2017, 08:53:20 AM
Quote
Well, if you really want to go big: take I-87 to I-20, multiplex it to Augusta, then take over the proposed I-14 route.  After all, I-85 in Alabama goes practically east-west, why not I-87?

(No, I'm not in the least bit serious here.)

It would fit the grid being east of I-85 :).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2017, 09:36:23 AM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!

*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on July 22, 2017, 10:40:16 AM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!

*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
It's already got the informal nickname of 'The Southway'.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on July 22, 2017, 03:04:21 PM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!

*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
It's already got the informal nickname of 'The Southway'.

I still think it should be called the "Jimmie Johnson/Rick Hendrick Championship Freeway" and the number changed to I-48 (for obvious reasons  - actually, more than one!).  Then get the Hendrick group to pony up some bucks for signage.  Win-win for all concerned!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2017, 03:15:27 PM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!

*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
It's already got the informal nickname of 'The Southway'.

I still think it should be called the "Jimmie Johnson/Rick Hendrick Championship Freeway" and the number changed to I-48 (for obvious reasons  - actually, more than one!).  Then get the Hendrick group to pony up some bucks for signage.  Win-win for all concerned!

Jeff Gordon might feel slighted, he only has 1.6 miles of I-85 named after him.

And don't give NCDOT any ideas, they'll try to number it I-3 and call it the "Dale Earnhardt Memorial Freeway."
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on July 22, 2017, 03:43:20 PM
Maybe they're just NY transplants and they're feeling homesick!

*waits for I-87 to also be labeled as the "North Carolina State Thruway" on Google Maps*
It's already got the informal nickname of 'The Southway'.

I still think it should be called the "Jimmie Johnson/Rick Hendrick Championship Freeway" and the number changed to I-48 (for obvious reasons  - actually, more than one!).  Then get the Hendrick group to pony up some bucks for signage.  Win-win for all concerned!

Jeff Gordon might feel slighted, he only has 1.6 miles of I-85 named after him.

And don't give NCDOT any ideas, they'll try to number it I-3 and call it the "Dale Earnhardt Memorial Freeway."

NCDOT already moved NC 3 to the Concord area for just that reason; that might keep them satisfied for the time being!  At least my number fits the damn grid!  And since Gordon is a Vallejo native up here in Bay country, maybe we should slap his name on CA 24, since it's not too far from his hometown -- and he probably raced on dirt tracks in the area when he was a kid in any case! 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Sam on July 22, 2017, 09:57:11 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/4wPUthI.png)

87 continues its westward creep on Google Maps. Now it's all the way to the 440 split!!!
I think the real problem with Google Maps jumping the gun is that it misleads drivers. If I'm southbound on I-95 headed for Raleigh, and Google Maps tells me to take I-87, I'm looking for signs that say I-87. I wouldn't think to exit on US 64. I'm sure plenty of drivers will just "in one half mile take the exit right", but, still, any mapmaker should try to be accurate.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 23, 2017, 09:22:50 AM
I think the real problem with Google Maps jumping the gun is that it misleads drivers. If I'm southbound on I-95 headed for Raleigh, and Google Maps tells me to take I-87, I'm looking for signs that say I-87. I wouldn't think to exit on US 64. I'm sure plenty of drivers will just "in one half mile take the exit right", but, still, any mapmaker should try to be accurate.

It doesn't only mislead drivers, but wikipedia editors who do not use official sources.   :banghead:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on July 23, 2017, 01:03:40 PM
Isn't our bipolar buddy on here one of the editors of Wiki? You know the big troll who has all the time in the world to be on line.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 23, 2017, 05:34:37 PM
Isn't our bipolar buddy on here one of the editors of Wiki? You know the big troll who has all the time in the world to be on line.

Well, anyone can make edits on wikipedia, so the people I swat reverts on are usually anonymous.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on July 25, 2017, 04:54:05 PM
Yes I imagine so.  Heck the one in question could just do it just to be funny. That is why you cannot trust wiki one hundred percent.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Finrod on July 26, 2017, 10:46:50 PM
That is why you cannot trust wiki one hundred percent.

I think of wikipedia as expressing an Internet consensus rather than anything else.  A consensus can be and often is wrong.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on July 28, 2017, 12:12:00 PM
Well its whats in the field verses what is legislated rather than wiki verses the DOTs.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 31, 2017, 08:14:09 AM
NCDOT has begun the process of removing the Future I-495 signs - at least in Nash County.  I first caught on to thus after the NC 581 exit thus morning.  I will confirm how much further West on my way home from work this evening.

The standard I-495 signs in Wake County still remain and may take a little longer as overheads will need to be replaced or updated.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 05, 2017, 08:32:36 PM
Interstate 87 shields are in the process of being installed on the Knightdale Bypass.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/300176946738649?view=permalink&id=1487186911370974
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: plain on September 05, 2017, 09:40:54 PM
Well I guess now it's official. Though I still think the state should've held off with the postings until US 64 out to at least I-95 is improved.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 05, 2017, 09:57:54 PM
Well I guess now it's official. Though I still think the state should've held off with the postings until US 64 out to at least I-95 is improved.

That wasn't going to happen, they are still years away from completing that stretch.  However, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 05, 2017, 10:03:22 PM
follow up with the blog entry with some of the new signing plans and changes to the exit numbers along the Knightdale Bypass for I-87.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2017, 12:47:25 AM
Aaaaaaargh!  Looks like the misbegotten I-87 is now fact rather than mistake-to-be-corrected!  Well, this just nails it -- 2016 will go down in history as The Year Of Bad Decisions.  :ded: I'll leave it to the rest of you to ponder what the others were.

(Alternately: the year of deliberate stupidity!)  :banghead:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 06:31:17 AM
Aaaaaaargh!  Looks like the misbegotten I-87 is now fact rather than mistake-to-be-corrected!  Well, this just nails it -- 2016 will go down in history as The Year Of Bad Decisions.  :ded: I'll leave it to the rest of you to ponder what the others were.

(Alternately: the year of deliberate stupidity!)  :banghead:

It -is- a stupid decision, as I argued before no Interstate highway is warrented in this corridor in the first place, at least not east of I-95.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 07:07:33 AM
Aaaaaaargh!  Looks like the misbegotten I-87 is now fact rather than mistake-to-be-corrected!  Well, this just nails it -- 2016 will go down in history as The Year Of Bad Decisions.  :ded: I'll leave it to the rest of you to ponder what the others were.

(Alternately: the year of deliberate stupidity!)  :banghead:

In fairness, the only folks that care about the decision to number this I-87 reside in this and/or similar forums. 

The east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon or that they should spend the money signing the road to fix some local intersection du jour.



Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 07:32:38 AM
Aaaaaaargh!  Looks like the misbegotten I-87 is now fact rather than mistake-to-be-corrected!  Well, this just nails it -- 2016 will go down in history as The Year Of Bad Decisions.  :ded: I'll leave it to the rest of you to ponder what the others were.

(Alternately: the year of deliberate stupidity!)  :banghead:

In fairness, the only folks that care about the decision to number this I-87 reside in this and/or similar forums. 

The east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon or that they should spend the money signing the road to fix some local intersection du jour.





Oh and the exit number changes that's the biggest gripe by locals.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on September 06, 2017, 07:35:24 AM
Regarding Adam's blog post...

- Based on those sign plans, looks like I-87 and I-440 will be co-signed on that corner of the Beltline.

- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: 21stCenturyRoad on September 06, 2017, 08:15:07 AM
Great to see that the I-87 signs are finally up :clap:
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on September 06, 2017, 08:41:42 AM

- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?

Looks like it was only on signs with an I-87 shield - perhaps to highlight which ones are different from current ones in the field (though they missed one from the I-40 WB perspective...)?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: HazMatt on September 06, 2017, 09:43:51 AM
Great to see that the I-87 signs are finally up :clap:
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?

You want 587 to duplex with 87 for 20 miles?  I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to request this.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 10:46:35 AM
Interstate 87 shields are in the process of being installed on the Knightdale Bypass.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/300176946738649?view=permalink&id=1487186911370974

About time.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 10:47:46 AM
Great to see that the I-87 signs are finally up :clap:
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?

You want 587 to duplex with 87 for 20 miles?  I wouldn't put it past NCDOT to request this.

Please don't tempt them...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:32:07 PM
The east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon

A legit complaint, IMO.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: michealbond on September 06, 2017, 12:49:59 PM
The east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon

A legit complaint, IMO.

Very legit. The Zebulon exit on 64 could use some work as well. Right now, it causes issues when people are getting onto 64 from that exit competing with people trying to get on to the next exit for US 264. with both US highways having future interstate access, I imagine both interchanges will need some work done to make it flow easier.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:50:45 PM
However, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.

The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)

However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.

Quote
AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization’s route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.

Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?

No. I-587 will begin at the 64/264 split in Zebulon and end at Exit 73 on the western outskirts of Greenville. I still have some hope left that NCDOT will come to their senses and truncate US-264 back to Zebulon.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 01:10:30 PM
The east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon

A legit complaint, IMO.

Very legit. The Zebulon exit on 64 could use some work as well. Right now, it causes issues when people are getting onto 64 from that exit competing with people trying to get on to the next exit for US 264. with both US highways having future interstate access, I imagine both interchanges will need some work done to make it flow easier.

I noticed that too when I passed through on my way to Wilson last year. Traffic between the Knightdale Bypass and the Zebulon split was pretty heavy. Beyond that, it was smooth sailing.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 01:51:24 PM
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?

No. I-587 will begin at the 64/264 split in Zebulon and end at Exit 73 on the western outskirts of Greenville. I still have some hope left that NCDOT will come to their senses and truncate US-264 back to Zebulon.

264 was extended to the Beltline because they or it was decided to have a continuous route designation from Raleigh to Greenville.  That's also why you saw so many Greenville auxiliary signs added to overheads at one point.  I have no issue with 264 as it is with the extension to Raleigh.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 02:00:42 PM
The east wake community forum I posted this in are complaining about 64 needing widened to Zebulon

A legit complaint, IMO.

Very legit. The Zebulon exit on 64 could use some work as well. Right now, it causes issues when people are getting onto 64 from that exit competing with people trying to get on to the next exit for US 264. with both US highways having future interstate access, I imagine both interchanges will need some work done to make it flow easier.

I noticed that too when I passed through on my way to Wilson last year. Traffic between the Knightdale Bypass and the Zebulon split was pretty heavy. Beyond that, it was smooth sailing.


The state does have plans to widen 64/264 from Wendell to the Zebulon split to 6 lanes. I don't know where it is at on the current STIP. Haven't looked yet. (They also have floated widening the Knightdale Bypass to 8 lanes.)

The congestion occurs heavily at rush hour.  Since I reverse commute I always see the backups and they can be lengthy when a wreck.  Typically wrecks happen at the interchange or somewhere westbound along the downhill grade from lizard lick road to Rolesville Road.

A quick fix for the split at zebulon. Add an exit only auxiliary lane from NC96 to the split. I think the only obstacle may be that they would have to lengthen the overpass that carries Shepherd School Road over the highway. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 02:26:56 PM
BTW, where is I-587 going to start? Since it's mileage will most likely correspond with US-264, wouldn't it start where US-264 starts at I-440 in order to align with the existing mileage and not make any changes?

No. I-587 will begin at the 64/264 split in Zebulon and end at Exit 73 on the western outskirts of Greenville. I still have some hope left that NCDOT will come to their senses and truncate US-264 back to Zebulon.

264 was extended to the Beltline because they or it was decided to have a continuous route designation from Raleigh to Greenville.  That's also why you saw so many Greenville auxiliary signs added to overheads at one point.  I have no issue with 264 as it is with the extension to Raleigh.

I feel like North Carolina gets too caught up on route numbers, at least more than most states. The average person doesn't care if US 264 ends at the Zebulon junction (it may as well anyway). It would probably be easier for navigational purposes if mileage on US 264 just started at the Zebulon junction.

I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on September 06, 2017, 02:49:49 PM
Regarding Adam's blog post...

- Based on those sign plans, looks like I-87 and I-440 will be co-signed on that corner of the Beltline.

- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?



Just like I mentioned in the past, NCDOT is not going to get rid of I-440 just like many people thought. I live in the state and knows if they plan on doing it, they will say it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 02:58:52 PM
Regarding Adam's blog post...

- Based on those sign plans, looks like I-87 and I-440 will be co-signed on that corner of the Beltline.

- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?



Just like I mentioned in the past, NCDOT is not going to get rid of I-440 just like many people thought. I live in the state and knows if they plan on doing it, they will say it.

I also live in this state and have seen numerous examples of the original designation plans changing..oh I don't know something about the Greensboro outer loop comes to mind.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on September 06, 2017, 03:06:01 PM
Regarding Adam's blog post...

- Based on those sign plans, looks like I-87 and I-440 will be co-signed on that corner of the Beltline.

- Any idea why some of the sign depictions along the Beltline are shaded in yellow?



Just like I mentioned in the past, NCDOT is not going to get rid of I-440 just like many people thought. I live in the state and knows if they plan on doing it, they will say it.

I also live in this state and have seen numerous examples of the original designation plans changing..oh I don't know something about the Greensboro outer loop comes to mind.



They only changed I-40/I-85/US 421 routing, everything else remains the just as planned ever since.

however, there is never a plan to change I-440 routing, even with I-87 in place.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 03:38:40 PM
It looks like the I-87 shields are up and visible.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2017, 04:33:45 PM
However, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.

The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)

However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.

Quote
AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization’s route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.

Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:

......One bad decision compounded by another.  Seeing that there's more E-W trajectory than N-S here, it should have, by all means, been an unused even number between 46 and 56.  :eyebrow:
I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.

At least NCDOT would maintain it!  And you'd have a diamond shield to call your own -- or steal and put up on your wall, then call NCDOT for a (series of) replacement(s)! :sombrero:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 06, 2017, 04:45:01 PM
However, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.

The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)

However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.

Quote
AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization’s route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.

Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:

......One bad decision compounded by another.  Seeing that there's more E-W trajectory than N-S here, it should have, by all means, been an unused even number between 46 and 56.  :eyebrow:
I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.

At least NCDOT would maintain it!  And you'd have a diamond shield to call your own -- or steal and put up on your wall, then call NCDOT for a (series of) replacement(s)! :sombrero:

What everyone is forgetting is that NCDOT originally petitioned the FHWA administratively for I-44 - they obviously rejected it but could have given guidance on route numbering. I would suspect that the initial N/S 89 proposal came from that guidance.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Takumi on September 06, 2017, 05:00:29 PM
However, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.

The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)

However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.

Quote
AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization’s route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.

Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:

......One bad decision compounded by another.  Seeing that there's more E-W trajectory than N-S here, it should have, by all means, been an unused even number between 46 and 56.  :eyebrow:
I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.

At least NCDOT would maintain it!  And you'd have a diamond shield to call your own -- or steal and put up on your wall, then call NCDOT for a (series of) replacement(s)! :sombrero:
Should have been I-46. VA and NC's 46s are one two-state route, so easier renumbering.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2017, 05:41:46 PM
However, I am still awaiting word from NCDOT and the Local News Outlets about I-87 before I update Wikipedia.

The News & Observer mentioned it. Still nothing from NCDOT's press release page yet.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171521622.html)

However, at least now we know why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for I-89 in favor of I-87.

Quote
AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey said the organization’s route numbering committee decided that the new North Carolina highway has a better chance of one day connecting to I-87 in New York than to I-89 in New England, and decided the road between Raleigh and Virginia should be I-87.

Like I-87 has a chance of connecting to New York... :pan:

......One bad decision compounded by another.  Seeing that there's more E-W trajectory than N-S here, it should have, by all means, been an unused even number between 46 and 56.  :eyebrow:
I always say that if NCDOT could find a reason to sign my parents's driveway though, they would.

At least NCDOT would maintain it!  And you'd have a diamond shield to call your own -- or steal and put up on your wall, then call NCDOT for a (series of) replacement(s)! :sombrero:

What everyone is forgetting is that NCDOT originally petitioned the FHWA administratively for I-44 - they obviously rejected it but could have given guidance on route numbering. I would suspect that the initial N/S 89 proposal came from that guidance.



IIRC, NCDOT's reasoning behind asking for an odd rather than even designation was conflict with nearby state routes; all the available even numbers, after 44 was eliminated, were duplicated by nearby state highways (46, 48, 54, 56), after 52 & 58 were set aside because of U.S. duplication in either NC or VA.  What is irrational about the process is that AASHTO summarily threw out the state highway duplication rationale -- but kept the shift to the odd set of numbers intact! -- which, even if such a decision had a basis in rational thought, might have yielded "I-97" rather than "I-87" as the most appropriate odd designation -- as there's more of a chance of connecting the two 97's than any other choice -- and most of the corridor alignment lies east of I-95! 

I guess I'm just not a fan of irrational processes, be they deliberate or simply misguided
(or, as I've previously surmised, the result of an open bar at a SCOURN meeting!).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 05:48:05 PM
IIRC, NCDOT's reasoning behind asking for an odd rather than even designation was conflict with nearby state routes; all the available even numbers, after 44 was eliminated, were duplicated by nearby state highways (46, 48, 54, 56), after 52 & 58 were set aside because of U.S. duplication in either NC or VA.  What is irrational about the process is that AASHTO summarily threw out the state highway duplication rationale -- but kept the shift to the odd set of numbers intact! -- which, even if such a decision had a basis in rational thought, might have yielded "I-97" rather than "I-87" as the most appropriate odd designation -- as there's more of a chance of connecting the two 97's than any other choice -- and most of the corridor alignment lies east of I-95! 
I guess I'm just not a fan of irrational processes, be they deliberate or simply misguided
(or, as I've previously surmised, the result of an open bar at a SCOURN meeting!).

As someone else pointed out, this would result in two different I-87s each of which would junction I-95 in a different state, and only a few hundred miles apart.  That could indeed cause motorist confusion.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2017, 07:40:35 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.

Yeah -- now NCDOT can ask for the "east quadrant" N-S route along NC 11 between Bethel and Kinston to be designated as I-187, and have Snoop Dogg pose under one of the reassurance shields! :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.

I-87 has to be the only interstate where this happens, right?

Connecting the 87s would be a matter of throwing an I-87 shield in I-64 from Hampton Roads to Richmond and then from Richmond to NYC. A completely nonsensical way to connect the two and basically creates an interstate highway whose southern portion looks like > but I'm not the one in charge. The interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2017, 11:59:43 PM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.

I-87 has to be the only interstate where this happens, right?

Connecting the 87s would be a matter of throwing an I-87 shield in I-64 from Hampton Roads to Richmond and then from Richmond to NYC. A completely nonsensical way to connect the two and basically creates an interstate highway whose southern portion looks like > but I'm not the one in charge. The interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.

The other four interstate designations applying to two separate sections -- 76, 84, 86, and 88 -- received their duplicate designation simply because there were zero unused even numbers anywhere near their grid position available for use on the 2nd section.  There was never any serious thought given to connecting any of those two- section routes.  Any statement by any official regarding connection of the two sections of I-87 is at best disingenuous and at worst a basic pull-it-out-of-your-ass attempt at rationalization of an error in judgment. 

That being said, the only connecting alignment with even a miniscule amount of reason behind it would be up Delmarva by whatever means necessary to I-95 at the DE 1 interchange, then up and across the Delaware Memorial -- and finally giving the lower NJT an Interstate designation before multiplexing with I-95 up to I-278, then replacing I-278 on the Verrazano Bridge and the BQE (hang on to your hats, long-distance drivers!!!) up to the south end of north I-87.  A couple of multiplexes with I-95 in DE and NJ (they're relatively short compared with other 2 di MPX's) could be within tolerance of such things.  One problem -- the probability of an Delmarva Interstate facility south of the VA/MD state line is miniscule -- just no place to put it without pissing off a lot of registered voters! 

And since that AASHTO statement came out of the De Moines meeting that I've long tentatively categorized as likely alcohol-driven -- I'll amend my analysis to include the possibility that the statement's author was either (a) smoking something quasi-legalized as well, or (b) unbelievably naive and/or ill-informed if he or she thought the two I-87's would eventually be as one!

Maybe one of us, if in the area, should make it a point to hang around the next SCOURN meeting and pipe up when decisions like this are imminent.  I'll volunteer for anything in Northern California or even Reno/Tahoe! :wave:     
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 09:33:34 AM
As someone else pointed out, this would result in two different I-87s each of which would junction I-95 in a different state, and only a few hundred miles apart.  That could indeed cause motorist confusion.

I seriously doubt there will be any confusion. There's still a good deal of distance between the two and I bet there's very few people in NY (other than those that frequent this forum) that is even aware that there's another I-87 existing elsewhere.

I'm not a fan of the I-87 number either, but I don't see the number causing a problem.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 09:37:14 AM
The interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.

Definitely not happening. The cost of upgrading the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the environmentally sensitive strip of land known as the Eastern Shore (along with it's hardcore NIMBY residents) will kill any offical talk of such an extension in a New York minute.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
The interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.
Definitely not happening. The cost of upgrading the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the environmentally sensitive strip of land known as the Eastern Shore (along with it's hardcore NIMBY residents) will kill any offical talk of such an extension in a New York minute.

The CBBT tunnels will be paralleled, one starting this year, and the other is not funded yet but the CBBTD is committed to doing it as soon as practicable.  No reason why CBBT couldn't be designated as an Interstate after it is all 4 lanes divided.

But the Eastern Shore Interstate has been studied by VDOT and deemed infeasible for the reasons above.

Plus there would be the issue of needing to upgrade the segment between I-64 and CBBT to Interstate standards.

Plus Maryland and Delaware have not studied it, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
The interstate up the DelMarVa peninsula would also help connect them but that's probably not happening.
Definitely not happening. The cost of upgrading the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the environmentally sensitive strip of land known as the Eastern Shore (along with it's hardcore NIMBY residents) will kill any offical talk of such an extension in a New York minute.

The CBBT tunnels will be paralleled, one starting this year, and the other is not funded yet but the CBBTD is committed to doing it as soon as practicable.  No reason why CBBT couldn't be designated as an Interstate after it is all 4 lanes divided.

The northbound bridge has no shoulders and neither does the existing tunnels. Unless FHWA grants a waiver or if Congress steps in, the CBBT cannot become part of an interstate.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on September 07, 2017, 01:59:52 PM

Plus Maryland and Delaware have not studied it, as far as I know.

Maryland and Delaware were part of the 2006 VODT study of I-99.  Delaware has at least looked at what it would take to make it happen and it sounded like Maryland had not...

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 02:37:28 PM
The CBBT tunnels will be paralleled, one starting this year, and the other is not funded yet but the CBBTD is committed to doing it as soon as practicable.  No reason why CBBT couldn't be designated as an Interstate after it is all 4 lanes divided.
The northbound bridge has no shoulders and neither does the existing tunnels. Unless FHWA grants a waiver or if Congress steps in, the CBBT cannot become part of an interstate.

The northbound bridge does have shoulders, just not wide enough to stop a car on.  It has emergency stopping bays about 1.5 miles apart that are wide enough for a car or truck.

Many bridges with such narrow shoulders were built under the federally aided Interstate system, so that should not be an issue on the CBBT.

I don't know of any major underwater highway tunnel in the world let alone on the Interstate system that has shoulders wide enough to stop a car on.  There are 3 Interstate tunnels in the Hampton Roads area in this category, and 2 in Baltimore.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 02:40:15 PM
Plus Maryland and Delaware have not studied it, as far as I know.
Maryland and Delaware were part of the 2006 VODT study of I-99.  Delaware has at least looked at what it would take to make it happen and it sounded like Maryland had not...
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf

OK, that is what it was, Maryland would be the missing link in any such Interstate highway proposal.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 06:33:52 PM
The CBBT tunnels will be paralleled, one starting this year, and the other is not funded yet but the CBBTD is committed to doing it as soon as practicable.  No reason why CBBT couldn't be designated as an Interstate after it is all 4 lanes divided.
The northbound bridge has no shoulders and neither does the existing tunnels. Unless FHWA grants a waiver or if Congress steps in, the CBBT cannot become part of an interstate.

The northbound bridge does have shoulders, just not wide enough to stop a car on.

That's an understatement. There's nothing but paint!

https://goo.gl/maps/k4tUpv4HekJ2 (https://goo.gl/maps/k4tUpv4HekJ2)

Quote
Many bridges with such narrow shoulders were built under the federally aided Interstate system, so that should not be an issue on the CBBT.

True, but the standards have changed since then and many of the bridges were grandfathered in. Current interstate standards call for 10ft. wide outside shoulders and 4ft. inside shoulders. VDOT would still need to either request a waiver from FHWA or somehow work with the CBBT Commission to bring the bridge to interstate standards. FHWA would likely grant a waiver for the tunnels, but I wouldn't hold my breath about the bridge, given the length of it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 07:08:04 PM
Many bridges with such narrow shoulders were built under the federally aided Interstate system, so that should not be an issue on the CBBT.
True, but the standards have changed since then and many of the bridges were grandfathered in. Current interstate standards call for 10ft. wide outside shoulders and 4ft. inside shoulders. VDOT would still need to either request a waiver from FHWA or somehow work with the CBBT Commission to bring the bridge to interstate standards. FHWA would likely grant a waiver for the tunnels, but I wouldn't hold my breath about the bridge, given the length of it.

National Interstate standards have called for those widths since at least 1970.  Nevertheless numerous Interstate bridges have been built with narrower shoulder widths or were preexisting and incorporated into the Interstate system since then. 

The PA Turnpike Northeast Extension was incorporated into the Interstate system as recently as 1996, and there are numerous bridges with no shoulder.

And as I said, there are no Interstate major underwater tunnels that have a shoulder wide enough to stop on, too expensive to build.

There is no need to make the CBBT an Interstate unless it is part of an Interstate route, and the reasons have already been posted as to why that won't happen on the Delmarva Peninsula.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on September 09, 2017, 03:50:16 AM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
In NY I-87 where it meets I-95 is referred to by its expressway name: The Major Deegan Expressway.  I don't think any confusion will occur.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 08:44:03 AM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
In NY I-87 where it meets I-95 is referred to by its expressway name: The Major Deegan Expressway.  I don't think any confusion will occur.

Any traveler that passes both junctions on the same trip may wonder what the heck is going on.  Plenty of motorists pass both junctions on one trip.  THSDOT does it again!    :wow:

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: 1 on September 09, 2017, 08:48:48 AM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
In NY I-87 where it meets I-95 is referred to by its expressway name: The Major Deegan Expressway.  I don't think any confusion will occur.

Any traveler that passes both junctions on the same trip may wonder what the heck is going on.

We already have this situation for I-76 and I-80.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 09:02:36 AM
Well, Interstate 87 has now been signposted in North Carolina. I guess we all just have to live with it. Also, I doubt there will be much confusion between Interstate 87 in North Carolina, and the pre-existing Interstate 87 in New York. I believe the two Interstate 87s are far enough apart, thus confusion would be minimal.
In NY I-87 where it meets I-95 is referred to by its expressway name: The Major Deegan Expressway.  I don't think any confusion will occur.
Any traveler that passes both junctions on the same trip may wonder what the heck is going on.
We already have this situation for I-76 and I-80.

But what, 2,000 miles apart?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on September 09, 2017, 11:25:19 AM
What about the many state route and US route duplications along interstates that intersect in such a short period?

NC 58 and US 58 less than 100 miles apart along I-95.  Heck I got a better one FL 10 and I-10 in Jacksonville real close to each other.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 12:13:10 PM
What about the many state route and US route duplications along interstates that intersect in such a short period?
NC 58 and US 58 less than 100 miles apart along I-95.  Heck I got a better one FL 10 and I-10 in Jacksonville real close to each other.

What about them?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on September 09, 2017, 12:31:55 PM
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 09, 2017, 03:46:20 PM
NCDOT has posted their recent feasibility study (dated 8-16-2017) for upgrading US-64 to interstate standards between Rolesville Road east of Knightdale and US-17 in Williamston. Alternatives include the possibility of widening US-64 to either 6 or 8 lanes between Rolesville Road and the 64/264 split in Zebulon, as well as making improvements through Rocky Mount to allow the speed limit to be increased to 70mph through the city.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: plain on September 09, 2017, 06:14:38 PM
Has there been any maps put out yet showing the potential routings northeast of Williamston?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on September 09, 2017, 09:37:19 PM
I don't think it's gotten to that level of study yet.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 11:23:35 PM
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.

NCDOT apparently doesn't think there is any confusion potential for overlapping US-74 and I-74 on the same highway, when the two routes ultimately diverge.    :hmmm:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 10, 2017, 12:15:35 AM
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.

NCDOT apparently doesn't think there is any confusion potential for overlapping US-74 and I-74 on the same highway, when the two routes ultimately diverge.    :hmmm:

That is because the travelers that do get confused implode from trying to make a decision.  Since they don't survive, they cannot complain.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 10, 2017, 01:24:43 AM
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.
NCDOT apparently doesn't think there is any confusion potential for overlapping US-74 and I-74 on the same highway, when the two routes ultimately diverge.    :hmmm:
That is because the travelers that do get confused implode from trying to make a decision.  Since they don't survive, they cannot complain.

Or else they take the wrong branch and they go out into hyperspace, never to return to Earth.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 10, 2017, 02:41:27 AM
I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.

NCDOT apparently doesn't think there is any confusion potential for overlapping US-74 and I-74 on the same highway, when the two routes ultimately diverge.    :hmmm:

That is because the travelers that do get confused implode from trying to make a decision.  Since they don't survive, they cannot complain.

I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line US 74 is decommissioned; of course, this would be contingent upon both the Columbus-Kings Mountain and Charlotte (or at least I-485) to Rockingham segments being subsumed by Interstate designations -- which appears to now be a NC tradition!  West of Asheville, there's only a few miles where US 74 is not multiplexed with other routes; that too could readily go by the wayside, rendering the entire route -- at least functionally -- as fully duplicative.         
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 10, 2017, 04:29:55 PM
I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line US 74 is decommissioned; of course, this would be contingent upon both the Columbus-Kings Mountain and Charlotte (or at least I-485) to Rockingham segments being subsumed by Interstate designations -- which appears to now be a NC tradition!  West of Asheville, there's only a few miles where US 74 is not multiplexed with other routes; that too could readily go by the wayside, rendering the entire route -- at least functionally -- as fully duplicative.       

It is actually Western North Carolina that is probably anchoring US 74 in place.  It was extended west in the '80s to established a central route through the region; US 64 takes a more southern route and US 19 takes a more northern route and then leaves early towards Atlanta.  It also overlaps an ADHS corridor, with the Great Smoky Mountains Expressway as its crowning section; they are currently building new road around Robbinsville, bypassing the Nantahala Gorge.

No, US 74 will not be decommissioned.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 10, 2017, 07:24:08 PM
I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line US 74 is decommissioned; of course, this would be contingent upon both the Columbus-Kings Mountain and Charlotte (or at least I-485) to Rockingham segments being subsumed by Interstate designations -- which appears to now be a NC tradition!  West of Asheville, there's only a few miles where US 74 is not multiplexed with other routes; that too could readily go by the wayside, rendering the entire route -- at least functionally -- as fully duplicative.       

It is actually Western North Carolina that is probably anchoring US 74 in place.  It was extended west in the '80s to established a central route through the region; US 64 takes a more southern route and US 19 takes a more northern route and then leaves early towards Atlanta.  It also overlaps an ADHS corridor, with the Great Smoky Mountains Expressway as its crowning section; they are currently building new road around Robbinsville, bypassing the Nantahala Gorge.

No, US 74 will not be decommissioned.

If the US 74 designation is applied to the Nantahala bypass, with US 19 remaining on the "scenic" route through the gorge itself, then I'd have to concur that US 74 is certainly viable for the segment west of I-40.  Actually -- giving it a 2nd look -- Alternate 74 east of Asheville could conceivably reassume its previous "mainline" status as far as 74 is concerned; and with the under-development Shelby bypass well north of that town, US 74 (as has been done previously elsewhere within NC) would simply continue to be signed along the "in-town" route; even with that bypass given Interstate status in the future.  The same would go for the segment between Charlotte and Rockingham; US 74 could and would remain on its current alignment, with a new Interstate designation applied to both the nascent toll road and any eastern extension toward Rockingham.

However, the portion with the twin Interstate and US 74 designations might be in jeopardy once the Interstate-grade segments are completed; it would likely be more appropriate to label the historic US 74 alignment as "Business I-74" with the usual green shields rather than just continue to schlep US 74 down through those towns.  In the long haul, that might be a bit confusing.  Ironically, because of the identical numbers, US 74 works well as a "placeholder" for I-74, particularly as a connector between the Interstate segments.  But as a permanent multiplex or parallel route, less so!  So I'll revise my evaluation to say that US 74 could conceivably stay viable west of Rockingham if NCDOT elects to keep signing the original alignment as such even if Interstate status is afforded any parallel freeway. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 11, 2017, 07:55:14 PM
I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line US 74 is decommissioned; of course, this would be contingent upon both the Columbus-Kings Mountain and Charlotte (or at least I-485) to Rockingham segments being subsumed by Interstate designations -- which appears to now be a NC tradition!  West of Asheville, there's only a few miles where US 74 is not multiplexed with other routes; that too could readily go by the wayside, rendering the entire route -- at least functionally -- as fully duplicative.       

It is actually Western North Carolina that is probably anchoring US 74 in place.  It was extended west in the '80s to established a central route through the region; US 64 takes a more southern route and US 19 takes a more northern route and then leaves early towards Atlanta.  It also overlaps an ADHS corridor, with the Great Smoky Mountains Expressway as its crowning section; they are currently building new road around Robbinsville, bypassing the Nantahala Gorge.

No, US 74 will not be decommissioned.

If the US 74 designation is applied to the Nantahala bypass, with US 19 remaining on the "scenic" route through the gorge itself, then I'd have to concur that US 74 is certainly viable for the segment west of I-40.  Actually -- giving it a 2nd look -- Alternate 74 east of Asheville could conceivably reassume its previous "mainline" status as far as 74 is concerned; and with the under-development Shelby bypass well north of that town, US 74 (as has been done previously elsewhere within NC) would simply continue to be signed along the "in-town" route; even with that bypass given Interstate status in the future.  The same would go for the segment between Charlotte and Rockingham; US 74 could and would remain on its current alignment, with a new Interstate designation applied to both the nascent toll road and any eastern extension toward Rockingham.

However, the portion with the twin Interstate and US 74 designations might be in jeopardy once the Interstate-grade segments are completed; it would likely be more appropriate to label the historic US 74 alignment as "Business I-74" with the usual green shields rather than just continue to schlep US 74 down through those towns.  In the long haul, that might be a bit confusing.  Ironically, because of the identical numbers, US 74 works well as a "placeholder" for I-74, particularly as a connector between the Interstate segments.  But as a permanent multiplex or parallel route, less so!  So I'll revise my evaluation to say that US 74 could conceivably stay viable west of Rockingham if NCDOT elects to keep signing the original alignment as such even if Interstate status is afforded any parallel freeway.

The only other option would to have a completely different number replacing US 74 in some way if we really want to end duplication, but that isn't going to happen.  Right now for Shelby and Monroe they are going to use "US 74 Bypass" for those new routes and leave mainland US 74 alone, which means if one day those section become part of an interstate they wouldn't have to change anything.  I agree that US 74 could revert back to its Alternate routing between Asheville and Forest City if an interstate is numbered between I-26 and I-85; a spur of I-73 or I-74 could do the same between Rockingham and I-485.  There are several choice NCDOT could go with in the future, so who knows.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 11, 2017, 08:11:12 PM
I'm confused as to why the NCDOT hasn't tried to build an interstate across the entirety of the current US 74 corridor. I always feel like that gets overlooked. Connecting Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington via one interstate route should take some priority.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on September 11, 2017, 08:48:30 PM
I'm confused as to why the NCDOT hasn't tried to build an interstate across the entirety of the current US 74 corridor. I always feel like that gets overlooked. Connecting Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington via one interstate route should take some priority.
Because they are blinded in getting Myrtle Beach, SC an interstate.

Yes US 74 should have an interstate from Charlotte to Wilmington and ideally using the freeways of US 74 west of where it breaks off of I-85.  In the perfect world the section of US 52 north of Winston- Salem and the new US 311 upgrade should be an entirely different interstate with an x77 or x40 or even x73.   Even if OH and WV build their parts of both I-73 and 74, I-74 should end in OH where it would meet I-73 north of Portsmouth then solo I-73 down to WV where the two would split, then 73 through Roanoke and then either I-46 or I-48 down through VA and even along US 52 and 311 to where 74 now meets I-73.  I-73 would be solo and have a cross junction with the US 74 upgrade which could be I-32 or any even number in the 30's.

What is and what is supposed to be are two different realities in today's universe.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 12, 2017, 01:57:28 AM
I'm confused as to why the NCDOT hasn't tried to build an interstate across the entirety of the current US 74 corridor. I always feel like that gets overlooked. Connecting Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington via one interstate route should take some priority.
Because they are blinded in getting Myrtle Beach, SC an interstate.

Yes US 74 should have an interstate from Charlotte to Wilmington and ideally using the freeways of US 74 west of where it breaks off of I-85.  In the perfect world the section of US 52 north of Winston- Salem and the new US 311 upgrade should be an entirely different interstate with an x77 or x40 or even x73.   Even if OH and WV build their parts of both I-73 and 74, I-74 should end in OH where it would meet I-73 north of Portsmouth then solo I-73 down to WV where the two would split, then 73 through Roanoke and then either I-46 or I-48 down through VA and even along US 52 and 311 to where 74 now meets I-73.  I-73 would be solo and have a cross junction with the US 74 upgrade which could be I-32 or any even number in the 30's.

What is and what is supposed to be are two different realities in today's universe.

The reason for the convoluted nature of the 73/74 concept is called High Priority Corridor 5.  Interregional connections that likely will never be made notwithstanding, the reason the part that is being developed (albeit in bits & pieces) retains the original numbering concept is the same reason as the "placeholder" I-69E/I-69C/I-69W designations were applied and actually signed in places within Texas -- each concept is considered sacrosanct as written within the circles of those backing and funding the projects.  Equally likely -- each concept has structural and/or systemic weaknesses (duh!), and no party with anything to lose if the concepts are somehow ended or even truncated wants to fuck with the proverbial "golden goose", even if it only sporadically lays an egg or two.  Calling attention to the fact that there is no action or even proposals for this corridor north of Roanoke -- or that the convolution of I-74 in SE NC and NE SC is a planning travesty -- might jeopardize the timely deployment of those corridor portions that are currently near-term projects.  In short, no vested party wants to mess with the composite corridor's program -- and suggesting alternate numbers might well call attention to those issues no one involved wants to address. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on September 12, 2017, 07:02:14 AM
Quote
...each concept is considered sacrosanct as written within the circles of those backing and funding the projects.

Backing, but no longer funding.  Much of the funding for the HPCs came from earmarks, which have been out of vogue in Congress for several years now.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 12, 2017, 02:49:45 PM
I'm confused as to why the NCDOT hasn't tried to build an interstate across the entirety of the current US 74 corridor. I always feel like that gets overlooked. Connecting Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington via one interstate route should take some priority.
Because they are blinded in getting Myrtle Beach, SC an interstate.

Yes US 74 should have an interstate from Charlotte to Wilmington and ideally using the freeways of US 74 west of where it breaks off of I-85.  In the perfect world the section of US 52 north of Winston- Salem and the new US 311 upgrade should be an entirely different interstate with an x77 or x40 or even x73.   Even if OH and WV build their parts of both I-73 and 74, I-74 should end in OH where it would meet I-73 north of Portsmouth then solo I-73 down to WV where the two would split, then 73 through Roanoke and then either I-46 or I-48 down through VA and even along US 52 and 311 to where 74 now meets I-73.  I-73 would be solo and have a cross junction with the US 74 upgrade which could be I-32 or any even number in the 30's.

What is and what is supposed to be are two different realities in today's universe.

Has nothing to do with 73 & myrtle beach.  As early as 1963, NC has tried to get the US 74 corridor as an Interstate.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/08/to-shore-north-carolinas-struggle-to.html?m=1

"
In 1963, North Carolina made one of their first attempts to extend the Interstate System within the state.  The state petitioned for two extensions: One, a route from Durham via Raleigh to Morehead City, and the second, a route from Charlotte to Wilmington. "

"With the 1968 extensions in place, the state was very aggressive in making Interstate requests in 1970.  The state would request routes for eleven new corridors totaling an estimated 673.9 miles. (4)  Three of the requests would involve Morehead City and Wilmington.   Two of the three corridor requests ended in Wilmington.  The most lengthy was a 245.4 mile corridor from Asheville to Wilmington via Charlotte.  This route would basically follow US 74.  The second Wilmington corridor request ran 159 miles southeast from Greensboro.  This proposal essentially followed modern US 421."

So instead the state has done steps to four lane 74 to Wilmington with various parts freeway, expressway, and basic divided highway.  The ways to get interstates designated have changed since the 1960s and more aggressively since the 1990s.

Jp,  you are incorrect when stating it's an obsession with Myrtle Beach and NCDOTs past history in trying to get a Charlotte to Wilmington interstate is reason why.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 12, 2017, 04:48:44 PM
Quote
...each concept is considered sacrosanct as written within the circles of those backing and funding the projects.

Backing, but no longer funding.  Much of the funding for the HPCs came from earmarks, which have been out of vogue in Congress for several years now.

Out of vogue in general (and within public proclamations) but still snuck in from time to time by wily old Congressfolks who know the ropes (and how to disguise earmarks as legislative modifications).  As long as there's not an obvious trail to draw the attention of the extremes on either side, projects with specific targets can be occasionally steered through the process.  It's certainly not like the old days of give-and-take and open-air tradeoffs -- but it is still there -- but not openly acknowledged as such.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 25, 2017, 08:36:39 PM
Update on the US-17 section of the corridor. Interesting is the mention of a possible connection to NC-168.

http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/09/25/DOT-to-post-I-87-concept-maps-online.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/09/25/DOT-to-post-I-87-concept-maps-online.html)

Quote
The NC Department of Transportation will soon make its concept maps of Interstate 87 available online, allowing the public to weigh in on the $1.35 billion project that will reshape travel through Williamston, Hertford and other communities on the way to Virginia.

NC DOT personnel agreed to make the maps available for review and comment at the urging of local officials at an Interstate 87 meeting in Elizabeth City last week. Even though planning for Interstate 87 remains in early stages, local officials said the public is already calling for more information on the project that could impact several communities and many property owners.

According to an email from DOT Transportation Engineer Shane York, the maps should soon be available at https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/projectsstudies/default.html?Counties=*&Region=*.

During the meeting, DOT’s consulting firm, AECOM, explained how they might turn US Highway 17 into Interstate 87, documenting the sections of road that need widening and the intersections that need changing if the road is to become a high-speed, “restricted access” highway allowing unimpeded travel from Williamston to the Virginia state line. Interstate 87 would also include US Highway 64 from Raleigh to Williamston, a road already close to interstate standards, but AECOM focused solely on US 17 during the local meeting.

AECOM officials Christy Shumate and Laura Fisher said US 17 from Williamston to Virginia is about 80 miles long. For planning purposes, AECOM has broken that corridor down into 10 segments needing varying levels of work. In a followup email, York added about 24 miles of that road are already at “freeway” standards, meaning DOT only needs to widen US 17 from Windsor to Castelloe Road, from the Chowan River almost to Edenton, and along the roughly 11-mile Elizabeth City bypass.

Things get more complicated in Williamston, Windsor and in the Town of Hertford, where keeping US 17 on its current route would require overpasses and numerous service roads to be constructed. Fisher noted several alternative routes for parts of Interstate 87, including arcing it east of US 17 in Williamston before tying back into the bridge over the Roanoke River, diverting it west of US 17 south of Windsor so it cuts around Windsor before tying into the existing bypass, and diverting it west of US 17 north of Winfall to tie into an interchange on Chapanoke Road. That Chapanoke interchange would avoid impacts to numerous properties around the intersection of Chapanoke and existing US 17.

Fisher proposed no alternative to taking I-87 through Hertford; however, which would require a diamond interchange be built at the intersection of US 17 and South Church Street.

Additionally, Fisher presented an alternative to the final stretch of I-87 in Camden, which would create an interchange not only connecting to the Dismal Swamp Canal Welcome Center, but create a connection to US Highway 168 in Currituck. Fisher said AECOM added that route at the request of officials in Currituck and Virginia.

Though DOT and AECOM officials agreed to provide their current concept maps, they noted those maps have been developed before the release of a “feasibility study” that will include a more formal public comment period; that study is expected by year’s end. As the name implies, the feasibility study is still a preliminary document itself; it sets the stage for submitting individual I-87 projects for possible state funding.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 25, 2017, 08:46:38 PM
Update on the US-17 section of the corridor. Interesting is the mention of a possible connection to NC-168.
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/09/25/DOT-to-post-I-87-concept-maps-online.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/09/25/DOT-to-post-I-87-concept-maps-online.html)
Quote
The NC Department of Transportation will soon make its concept maps of Interstate 87 available online, allowing the public to weigh in on the $1.35 billion project that will reshape travel through Williamston, Hertford and other communities on the way to Virginia.

About 70 miles of rural Interstate highway?  No way they can build it for that cost today, it will be at least twice that.

The existing highway is in vast majority a nonlimited-access 4-lane highway, so they can't just upgrade that to Interstate standards without spending about the same per-mile cost of that of a new location Interstate highway.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Henry on September 26, 2017, 11:09:39 AM
If the Alligator Alley through the Everglades is any indication, they may try to build I-87 through the Great Dismal Swamp, although it will be far more expensive to build than what the NCDOT estimate is, unless tolls are somehow enacted elsewhere throughout the state. (IIRC, either I-85 or I-95 was going to be tolled from the VA line south; any updates on that plan?)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 26, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
(IIRC, either I-85 or I-95 was going to be tolled from the VA line south; any updates on that plan?)

It was I-95 but that idea was killed after massive opposition from towns/cities and businesses in eastern NC.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 26, 2017, 01:20:18 PM
(IIRC, either I-85 or I-95 was going to be tolled from the VA line south; any updates on that plan?)
It was I-95 but that idea was killed after massive opposition from towns/cities and businesses in eastern NC.

And massive opposition from various trucking industry lobby groups, and various motorist advocacy lobby groups ...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 26, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
Question: is the connection to NC 168 (and by extension VA 168) simply that -- a connecting access route -- or is it a fallback I-87 routing in case VA or the city of Chesapeake declines to improve US 17/Dominion Blvd. north to I-64?  (In other words, a "shunt" of I-87 over to a route that is significantly more completed in VA.) 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 26, 2017, 04:19:41 PM
Question: is the connection to NC 168 (and by extension VA 168) simply that -- a connecting access route -- or is it a fallback I-87 routing in case VA or the city of Chesapeake declines to improve US 17/Dominion Blvd. north to I-64?  (In other words, a "shunt" of I-87 over to a route that is significantly more completed in VA.)

I suspect that VA is wanting I-87 to follow VA-168. Unlike US-17, the majority of VA-168 is almost interstate standard and wouldn't cost quite as much to upgrade as it would US-17, which still has at-grades remaining (some surrounded by businesses), even after the completion of the Dominion Blvd project. One can easily see why VA would favor using VA-168.

The big problem is that it would require a new routing in NC linking US-17 to 168. Given the cost and sensitive wetland it would go through (as well as the inevitable lawsuits), I highly doubt NCDOT would favor the 168 option.

US-17 benefits NC, VA-168 benefits VA. Catch 22.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 26, 2017, 04:40:30 PM
Question: is the connection to NC 168 (and by extension VA 168) simply that -- a connecting access route -- or is it a fallback I-87 routing in case VA or the city of Chesapeake declines to improve US 17/Dominion Blvd. north to I-64?  (In other words, a "shunt" of I-87 over to a route that is significantly more completed in VA.)

I suspect that VA is wanting I-87 to follow VA-168. Unlike US-17, the majority of VA-168 is almost interstate standard and wouldn't cost quite as much to upgrade as it would US-17, which still has at-grades remaining (some surrounded by businesses), even after the completion of the Dominion Blvd project. One can easily see why VA would favor using VA-168.

The big problem is that it would require a new routing in NC linking US-17 to 168. Given the cost and sensitive wetland it would go through (as well as the inevitable lawsuits), I highly doubt NCDOT would favor the 168 option.

US-17 benefits NC, VA-168 benefits VA. Catch 22.

So the "fallback", if that, is that NC ends up ponying up extra $$ for the swamp connector so VA can collect even more tolls at the Intracoastal Waterway bridge on 168.  Sounds like a classic "win/FU" situation!  It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, considering the improvements that have already been put into Dominion Blvd.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on September 26, 2017, 09:41:23 PM
Quote from: Henry
If the Alligator Alley through the Everglades is any indication, they may try to build I-87 through the Great Dismal Swamp

ACoE shot down the US 460 plan because of wetlands...there's no way that they'd approve an Interstate across the Dismal Swamp.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 27, 2017, 07:52:51 AM
Question: is the connection to NC 168 (and by extension VA 168) simply that -- a connecting access route -- or is it a fallback I-87 routing in case VA or the city of Chesapeake declines to improve US 17/Dominion Blvd. north to I-64?  (In other words, a "shunt" of I-87 over to a route that is significantly more completed in VA.)

I suspect that VA is wanting I-87 to follow VA-168. Unlike US-17, the majority of VA-168 is almost interstate standard and wouldn't cost quite as much to upgrade as it would US-17, which still has at-grades remaining (some surrounded by businesses), even after the completion of the Dominion Blvd project. One can easily see why VA would favor using VA-168.

The big problem is that it would require a new routing in NC linking US-17 to 168. Given the cost and sensitive wetland it would go through (as well as the inevitable lawsuits), I highly doubt NCDOT would favor the 168 option.

US-17 benefits NC, VA-168 benefits VA. Catch 22.

So the "fallback", if that, is that NC ends up ponying up extra $$ for the swamp connector so VA can collect even more tolls at the Intracoastal Waterway bridge on 168.  Sounds like a classic "win/FU" situation!  It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, considering the improvements that have already been put into Dominion Blvd.

I don't think tolls have anything to do with it. Part of US-17 in Chesapeake recently had tolling implemented after the Dominion Blvd project wrapped up and the Dominion Blvd project was underway before I-87 was even thought of.

Upgrading VA-168 is simply cheaper and easier for VA, but they must be smoking crack if they think NCDOT could ever get approval for a new connector route versus upgrading US-17. You'd think they realize that after the US-460 fiasco...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on September 27, 2017, 09:01:02 AM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave.  The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 28, 2017, 02:51:15 AM
Quote from: Henry
If the Alligator Alley through the Everglades is any indication, they may try to build I-87 through the Great Dismal Swamp

ACoE shot down the US 460 plan because of wetlands...there's no way that they'd approve an Interstate across the Dismal Swamp.
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave.  The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.


That seems to clear that situation up; a VA 168 routing for I-87 would have been something of an inefficient detour.  Despite its traversal of the edge of the Great Dismal, US 17 in VA is a divided facility (at least the non-Dominion segment) that could conceivably, despite some level of difficulty, lend itself to Interstate-level upgrades. 

Looking at the area it appears the connector would intersect NC 168 somewhere in the vicinity of Moyock.  Seeing as the swampland just west of there was the site of the notorious Blackwater HQ and purported commando training area, it would be intriguing -- and probably ironically humorous -- to project how Erik Prince would react to a new major road facility slicing through his bailiwick -- something tells me he and his cohorts wouldn't care much for that prospect!  I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the phrase "eminent domain" became part of the conversation about the concept with that particular group of people.     
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 28, 2017, 09:19:43 AM
Even without I-87, there's practically zero chance NCDOT would ever get approval to build that connector.

That being said, I do think it has some merit, since it could serve as a detour route for those going into Chesapeake from NC should US-17 in VA be shut down for any reason (accidents, construction, etc.). It would also give those who live along VA-168 in southern Chesapeake easy access to US-17.

As for the idea of tolls being an issue, it won't be. Both VA-168 and US-17 in VA have tolls, so drivers are gonna get fleeced either way.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 03:23:21 PM
That seems to clear that situation up; a VA 168 routing for I-87 would have been something of an inefficient detour.  Despite its traversal of the edge of the Great Dismal, US 17 in VA is a divided facility (at least the non-Dominion segment) that could conceivably, despite some level of difficulty, lend itself to Interstate-level upgrades. 

All of VA US-17 between NC and I-64 is built to at least expressway standards, a limited access right-of-way with only a small number of at-grade intersections allowed.  The section from VA-165 northward, in my estimation, is built to Interstate standards, with the completion of the recent Dominion Boulevard Project (http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/Dominion+Fact+Sheet.pdf).

The portion south of VA-165 has a cross-section that is befitting of Interstate standards, median over 50 feet wide and clear roadsides 25 to 30 feet wide, 10 foot paved right shoulders and 3 foot paved right shoulders.  Would need to build 5 or 6 overpass bridges and an interchange at two of them.  Alignment should be postable to at least 65 mph.

VA-168 south of Great Bridge has a cross-section that IMO is too narrow for Interstate standards.  Major slope widening and flattening and more right-of-way would be needed.  The median is too narrow at 30 feet wide.  I-464 could theoretically be extended today down VA-168 to a mile from N.C., but I would oppose that for the reasons above.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 28, 2017, 03:41:52 PM
That seems to clear that situation up; a VA 168 routing for I-87 would have been something of an inefficient detour.  Despite its traversal of the edge of the Great Dismal, US 17 in VA is a divided facility (at least the non-Dominion segment) that could conceivably, despite some level of difficulty, lend itself to Interstate-level upgrades. 

All of VA US-17 between NC and I-64 is built to at least expressway standards, a limited access right-of-way with only a small number of at-grade intersections allowed.  The section from VA-165 northward, in my estimation, is built to Interstate standards, with the completion of the recent Dominion Boulevard Project (http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/Dominion+Fact+Sheet.pdf).

The portion south of VA-165 has a cross-section that is befitting of Interstate standards, median over 50 feet wide and clear roadsides 25 to 30 feet wide, 10 foot paved right shoulders and 3 foot paved right shoulders.  Would need to build 5 or 6 overpass bridges and an interchange at two of them.  Alignment should be postable to at least 65 mph.

VA-168 south of Great Bridge has a cross-section that IMO is too narrow for Interstate standards.  Major slope widening and flattening and more right-of-way would be needed.  The median is too narrow at 30 feet wide.  I-464 could theoretically be extended today down VA-168 to a mile from N.C., but I would oppose that for the reasons above.

So the only problem is getting VA DOT to actually pay attention to the Interstate-upgrade efforts on this corridor; it may be a "bridge too far" to expect them to prioritize it -- given their track record to date -- absent political direction urging them to do so.  At this point it's probably a matter of waiting and watching.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 04:42:58 PM
All of VA US-17 between NC and I-64 is built to at least expressway standards, a limited access right-of-way with only a small number of at-grade intersections allowed.  The section from VA-165 northward, in my estimation, is built to Interstate standards, with the completion of the recent Dominion Boulevard Project (http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Dominion/Dominion+Fact+Sheet.pdf).
The portion south of VA-165 has a cross-section that is befitting of Interstate standards, median over 50 feet wide and clear roadsides 25 to 30 feet wide, 10 foot paved right shoulders and 3 foot paved right shoulders.  Would need to build 5 or 6 overpass bridges and an interchange at two of them.  Alignment should be postable to at least 65 mph.
VA-168 south of Great Bridge has a cross-section that IMO is too narrow for Interstate standards.  Major slope widening and flattening and more right-of-way would be needed.  The median is too narrow at 30 feet wide.  I-464 could theoretically be extended today down VA-168 to a mile from N.C., but I would oppose that for the reasons above.
So the only problem is getting VA DOT to actually pay attention to the Interstate-upgrade efforts on this corridor; it may be a "bridge too far" to expect them to prioritize it -- given their track record to date -- absent political direction urging them to do so.  At this point it's probably a matter of waiting and watching.

As I have said a number of times before, I think the whole "NC I-87" plan is nonsense and a boondoggle, in the first place.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 28, 2017, 05:31:06 PM
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: BrianP on September 28, 2017, 05:33:07 PM
I would hope that Virginia would at least create a project for upgrading that part of US 17 or whatever they do so that it can at least be scored with other projects in the state.  I'm assuming this hasn't happened.  I would expect that the project would not score high enough to proceed to construction for many years.  But at least it would be on the books and ranked.  And this should satisfy NC that they are at least considering it. 

This section only means that I-87 won't exist in VA.  The corridor will still function for the most part as NC wants for their benefit.  This is since I think trucks will use the corridor between the ports in VA and destinations in NC that are east of Rocky Mount.  I doubt they would use US 58 and I-95 as an alternative. West of Rocky Mount is not so clear which corridor would be used.  That's since this section in question is only 14 miles and has only two signalized intersections.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 05:41:03 PM
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.

It is not a reality, it is just a line on a piece of paper, and in some PDFs.

I would hope that Virginia would at least create a project for upgrading that part of US 17 or whatever they do so that it can at least be scored with other projects in the state.  I'm assuming this hasn't happened.  I would expect that the project would not score high enough to proceed to construction for many years.  But at least it would be on the books and ranked.  And this should satisfy NC that they are at least considering it. 
This section only means that I-87 won't exist in VA.  The corridor will still function for the most part as NC wants for their benefit.  This is since I think trucks will use the corridor between the ports in VA and destinations in NC that are east of Rocky Mount.  I doubt they would use US 58 and I-95 as an alternative. West of Rocky Mount is not so clear which corridor would be used.  That's since this section in question is only 14 miles and has only two signalized intersections.

East of Rocky Mount the existing US-64 and US-17 are more than adequate for many years if not decades to come.  Not enough there to warrant more than a 4-lane interregional highway like what is already there.

West of Rocky Mount, US-58 and I-95 is about 25 miles shorter, distance in and of itself dismiss anything along the US-64 and US-17 corridor.  Particularly for large trucks.  US-58 and I-95 are not going to stand still on improvements over the next 20 years, either.

US-58 has one project under construction (Courtland Interchange east end of bypass), one project coming in four years (3.5 miles of 6-laning with access management west of Suffolk Bypass) and one project in planning (connect the Courtland and Franklin bypasses).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 28, 2017, 07:43:47 PM
I would hope that Virginia would at least create a project for upgrading that part of US 17 or whatever they do so that it can at least be scored with other projects in the state.  I'm assuming this hasn't happened.  I would expect that the project would not score high enough to proceed to construction for many years.  But at least it would be on the books and ranked.  And this should satisfy NC that they are at least considering it.

If I-73 is any indication, then I would not expect I-87 to go beyond NC anytime soon, if ever. Hampton Roads supports it, but they're focused on much bigger problems at the moment, such as trying to get I-64 and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel widened. Once the major issues have been addressed and dealt with, then they'll probably turn their attention to I-87.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on September 28, 2017, 07:51:33 PM
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.

It is not a reality, it is just a line on a piece of paper, and in some PDFs.

Perhaps not in VA, but it's as real as it can get in NC. I-87 shields have already been posted on the US-64 Knightdale Bypass.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2017, 08:03:05 PM
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.
It is not a reality, it is just a line on a piece of paper, and in some PDFs.
Perhaps not in VA, but it's as real as it can get in NC. I-87 shields have already been posted on the US-64 Knightdale Bypass.

On a short section of pre-existing Interstate-standard highway. 

For future projects, it is just a line on a piece of paper.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 28, 2017, 09:12:54 PM
It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.
It is not a reality, it is just a line on a piece of paper, and in some PDFs.
Perhaps not in VA, but it's as real as it can get in NC. I-87 shields have already been posted on the US-64 Knightdale Bypass.

On a short section of pre-existing Interstate-standard highway. 

For future projects, it is just a line on a piece of paper.

However, it's a line on a paper within NC -- and, when it comes to Interstate additions, it's location, location, location.  Also the fact that the southwesternmost 90+ miles of the corridor are already built out to freeway standards, with everything from Tarboro to Williamston built to Interstate criteria -- leaving about 48 miles of moderately substandard facility (mostly shoulder widths).  If I had to venture a guess based on previous NC history with projects of this sort, they'll do what they did with 73/74 -- post Interstate shields on the conforming portion and future corridor signs on the part that doesn't yet meet spec -- and that signage will happen within 5 years at the outside.  This state tends to follow through with such plans (when & if there's funding, of course); the presence of extant usable facilities just serves to accelerate things!   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on September 28, 2017, 09:40:55 PM
Quote
Looking at the area it appears the connector would intersect NC 168 somewhere in the vicinity of Moyock.

North of there.  Per the maps, it would intersect NC 168 just north of the state line.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: plain on September 29, 2017, 12:46:37 PM
The only way I can see such a connector becoming a reality is if it's built directly on top of Old Swamp Rd, and that's definitely not happening. Might as well forget about it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Roadsguy on September 29, 2017, 04:06:26 PM
Does NCDOT still build new expressways with narrow shoulders whenever possible?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 29, 2017, 04:47:40 PM
Does NCDOT still build new expressways with narrow shoulders whenever possible?

All North Carolina highways have shoulders, but not all are fully paved.  So if you are referring "narrow shoulders" as paved area then yes, but people can still pull over onto the shoulder, it will either just be dirt or grass instead.  The state manages the 2nd largest network in the country, not surprising they cut a few corners.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 29, 2017, 04:59:28 PM
Does NCDOT still build new expressways with narrow shoulders whenever possible?
All North Carolina highways have shoulders, but not all are fully paved.  So if you are referring "narrow shoulders" as paved area then yes, but people can still pull over onto the shoulder, it will either just be dirt or grass instead.  The state manages the 2nd largest network in the country, not surprising they cut a few corners.

True, the shoulder is defined as the graded area on the roadside that slopes at or near the same slope as the roadway, up to about 12 wide.

Whether the shoulder is paved or stabilized, and the width of that area, is a separate design matter.  A shoulder can be stabilized with 3 or 4 inch depth of compacted aggregate base material, and while being unpaved can still provide a strong support for a vehicle that stops on it, and it won't get muddy and soft from a heavy rain.

How often are N.C. unpaved shoulders stabilized in the above manner?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on September 29, 2017, 06:37:51 PM
Does NCDOT still build new expressways with narrow shoulders whenever possible?
All North Carolina highways have shoulders, but not all are fully paved.  So if you are referring "narrow shoulders" as paved area then yes, but people can still pull over onto the shoulder, it will either just be dirt or grass instead.  The state manages the 2nd largest network in the country, not surprising they cut a few corners.

True, the shoulder is defined as the graded area on the roadside that slopes at or near the same slope as the roadway, up to about 12 wide.

Whether the shoulder is paved or stabilized, and the width of that area, is a separate design matter.  A shoulder can be stabilized with 3 or 4 inch depth of compacted aggregate base material, and while being unpaved can still provide a strong support for a vehicle that stops on it, and it won't get muddy and soft from a heavy rain.

How often are N.C. unpaved shoulders stabilized in the above manner?

That type of shoulder was employed on the US 78 freeway in Mississippi (at least west of Tupelo); replacement of it with paved shoulders was the principal hold-up (New Albany notwithstanding!) to achievement of Interstate standards during the I-22 conversion process.  I had occasion to pull over onto those shoulders back around 1999; even after a rain they seemed to be quite stable -- it never felt like I was driving into a mud patch or anything that would be difficult to drive out of.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on September 29, 2017, 08:35:08 PM
True, the shoulder is defined as the graded area on the roadside that slopes at or near the same slope as the roadway, up to about 12 wide.
Whether the shoulder is paved or stabilized, and the width of that area, is a separate design matter.  A shoulder can be stabilized with 3 or 4 inch depth of compacted aggregate base material, and while being unpaved can still provide a strong support for a vehicle that stops on it, and it won't get muddy and soft from a heavy rain.
How often are N.C. unpaved shoulders stabilized in the above manner?
That type of shoulder was employed on the US 78 freeway in Mississippi (at least west of Tupelo); replacement of it with paved shoulders was the principal hold-up (New Albany notwithstanding!) to achievement of Interstate standards during the I-22 conversion process.  I had occasion to pull over onto those shoulders back around 1999; even after a rain they seemed to be quite stable -- it never felt like I was driving into a mud patch or anything that would be difficult to drive out of.   

Virginia makes widespread use of stabilized shoulders on 4-lane interregional highways.  After five years or so after installation, enough grass grows in them that the aggregate base material is not as obvious.  They are quite solid and firm even for a truck to stop on.  They also lend themselves to being paved with plant mix asphalt in a routine roadway resurfacing project, so it is not necessary to program a TIP/SYP project in order to convert it to a paved shoulder.  Just spread an inch or so more of aggregate base on the shoulder, grade it with a motorgrader, and pave it with asphalt.  On the 4-lane interregional highways, in more and more places these shoulders are being paved in this manner, usually 10 years or more after the original installation.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: michealbond on October 03, 2017, 08:33:31 AM
http://www.reflector.com/News/2017/10/03/Officials-consider-bond-for-quicker-I-87.html

Quote
ELIZABETH CITY — North Carolinians agreed to borrow $2 billion last year to support higher education and infrastructure. Should they borrow a similar amount to more quickly build Interstate 87 and other important roads?
Some local officials say yes.

For more than a year, Interstate 87 has been a burning issue for elected officials in Pasquotank and surrounding counties. Creating that road from Raleigh to the Virginia state line would cost more than $1.3 billion, based on early estimates, and it could take decades to develop. Just widening U.S. Highway 17 to interstate standards from northern Pasquotank through Camden may cost almost $187 million, and it's not slated to start before 2027, according to the state's 2018-2027 transportation plan.

Angela Welsh, of the Albemarle Rural Planning Organization, helps county officials review and prioritize road projects. As she reported a year ago, I-87 projects score poorly under the state's “Strategic Mobility Formula” that helps decide road funding.

The argument from Welsh and others is that those projects are more than the sum of their parts. An interchange here and an overpass there might not seem to do much in small communities where congestion isn't a problem. Combine them all to make an interstate, however, and you can offer businesses a high-speed, non-stop corridor to move their goods.

That's part of why ARPO member and Pasquotank Commissioner Lloyd Griffin said he supported special funding to support I-87 development. The state's road funding formula continues to prioritize dollars towards congestion, meaning rural areas are hard-pressed to beat urban ones for state dollars. The road funding formula does commit certain amounts to each part of the state, but Griffin noted the northeast also has to spend major dollars maintaining ferries.

Elizabeth City City Manager Rich Olson similarly said Friday the state should provide funding outside of the road funding formula. Looking at I-87 projects collectively shows their value, he argued, also noting the state is working on an economic analysis that should reaffirm that.

Wayne Harris, director of the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Economic Development Commission, also agreed with additional funding to accelerate I-87 construction.
“The sooner it happens, the faster we'll see that economic development boost,” Harris said.

He also added that the “path of the least resistance” for funding I-87 would be issuing bonds.

North Carolina has $2.25 billion in transportation debt capacity over the next five years, according to the latest annual “Debt Affordability Study” from the state treasurer. In reaching that number, the study notes that North Carolina has a goal of borrowing no more than 6 percent of available transportation revenues. Transportation debt is considered separately from general fund debt – which now includes the $2 billion “Connect NC” bonds that voters approved in spring 2016 for supporting higher education and infrastructure.

Rep. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan, said he's open to a transportation bond. I-87 is critical to tapping into the economic growth in Tidewater Virginia, he said.
“North of us is exploding,” Steinburg said. “I think we need to move as quickly as prudently possible” in developing I-87, he said.

However, Steinburg noted, there would be politics to navigate in proposing another bond.

Were the General Assembly to consider a $2 billion road bond, other lawmakers would, understandably, expect funding for high-priority projects in their areas as well, he explained.

It's also unlikely they'd support devoting all $1.35 billion needed to develop all of I-87. That would commit more than half the state's five-year transportation debt capacity to just one project.

That means that even a major bond issue likely wouldn't fund the whole road. Agreeing with Pasquotank and Camden officials, Steinburg said he'd support prioritizing interstate development from Elizabeth City to Virginia. That would make Pasquotank and Camden's industrial parks more attractive, he noted.
Rep. Howard Hunter III, D-Hertford, also said he'd support issuing transportation bonds for I-87, as well as special appropriations, if needed.

“I totally agree that this project should be done faster,” Hunter said, adding he's been fighting for better infrastructure since taking office.

“I've found out it's not Republican versus Democrat — it's urban versus rural,” he said.

Sen. Bill Cook, R-Beaufort, declined to state in an email whether he'd support special appropriations or a bond issue for I-87. He noted, however, that the state has increased transportation funding by $320 million over the next two years in the State Transportation Improvement Plan, noting plans to upgrade U.S. 17 north of Elizabeth City in 2027.

Sen. Erica Smith-Ingram, D-Northampton, couldn't be reached for comment Friday.

Though local lawmakers may be receptive to special funding for I-87, legislative leaders may be less so. In an email, a spokeswoman for Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said he supports the reforms lawmakers made to how roads are funded and the additional $320 million put into the STIP. Lawmakers have worked to accelerate road funding, she noted.

She also wrote “Sen. Berger supports continuing this approach … without incurring additional debt and without undermining the fair and transparent process North Carolina now has in place.”
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 03, 2017, 11:11:26 AM
From the article:

Quote
"I-87 projects score poorly under the state's “Strategic Mobility Formula” that helps decide road funding."

Then perhaps I-87 projects aren't the proper place to spend transportation dollars...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 03, 2017, 11:54:42 AM
I don't see any bond happening. The General Assembly wouldn't even allow highway funding in the Connect NC bonds that former governor Pat McCrory wanted. That's one of the very few things he attempted to do right.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 03, 2017, 01:11:38 PM
From the article:
Quote
"I-87 projects score poorly under the state's “Strategic Mobility Formula” that helps decide road funding."
Then perhaps I-87 projects aren't the proper place to spend transportation dollars...

They aren't.  East of Rocky Mount, the existing 4-lane interregional highways US-64 and US-17 will be more than adequate for the corridor for at least 20 years into the future.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 05, 2017, 06:27:00 PM
From the article:
Quote
"I-87 projects score poorly under the state's “Strategic Mobility Formula” that helps decide road funding."
Then perhaps I-87 projects aren't the proper place to spend transportation dollars...

They aren't.  East of Rocky Mount, the existing 4-lane interregional highways US-64 and US-17 will be more than adequate for the corridor for at least 20 years into the future.

It seems to be as much a case of intrastate politicking (pitting regions against one another for attention in this realm) as anything that has resulted in not one but three Interstate corridors (42,587,87) commissioned from Raleigh toward the coast.  Since the completion of I-40 down to Wilmington over 25 years ago, most NC transportation interests have concentrated in the Research Triangle and the Piedmont (including, for better or worse, the I-73/74 developmental efforts).  Pretty much anything east of US 1 was, in relative terms, afforded short shrift.  Now that other activities (the aforementioned 73/74 corridor, the I-26 extension, the I-485 beltway, etc.) are no longer new & intriguing and inviting most of the attention, coastal Carolina saw an opening and grabbed it.  While the US 70 corridor definitely needed attention given regional growth -- and I-42 was the chosen vehicle for such -- the other two corridors were already serviceable facilities.  But it's politics -- which has overtaken actual determined need as the principal driving factor behind many, if not most, of the last several Interstate corridors to be commissioned (in NC and elsewhere) -- that is likely in play here, as it has been in other locales (TX being another).  It no longer becomes a matter of demonstrated need but more often basic want, exacerbated by opportunity  -- i.e., the existence of a facility perceived as having greater potential value than its current usage may suggest, or even the presence of legislation (principally the HPC compendium) singling out certain routes or corridors for future attention and potential funding.

In the instance of I-87, both factors are in play -- the facility, particularly along US 64, is either at or near Interstate standards already, while the remainder along US 17 has sporadic segments of usable roadway as well.  Add the presence, for the last 26 years, of one of the original ISTEA-based high-priority corridors (#13).  The final catalyst is locally-originated political action stemming from either regional self-interest, simple envy, or both.  And, voila', we've got I-87 (and its offspring I-587).  This is currently how corridors are commissioned -- and occasionally actually constructed; more a matter of someone or something with clout wanting a "piece of the action" rather than any level of deference to the status quo.  Interstate additions are no longer a matter of careful consideration prompted by demonstrated need; they're a way to attract attention to regions and locales whose denizens perceive that this is a way to advance their particular interests.

One has merely to go back to the 1973 changes in how federal transportation funding was dispersed to see the inception of the present situation -- Interstates were no longer a "top-down" nationally-vetted entity but from that point on reflecting a "bottom-up" approach dependent upon state/local efforts -- a recipe for localized unilateral activity toward ends with perceived local or regional benefit.  It seems that the authors of the '73 changes wished to eliminate the possibility of a repeat of the 1968 "omnibus" 1500-mile national Interstate expansion legislation by shifting the impetus away from national consideration to localized will.  And that is precisely what happened until the 1991 ISTEA act -- but that legislation, and its periodic successors, was simply a series of unfunded mandates; a "wish list", so to speak, of individual projects; it was left up to the regions affected by the listed corridors to follow through on both political and physical efforts to actually build out those corridors -- if and only if funding could be secured.  New Interstates commissioned over the last quarter century have, for the most part, had their origins within the various corridors that are periodically added to the HPC aggregate.

 As the "system" presently stands, planning efforts based on actual need don't stand a chance of seeing the light of day whereas politically-motivated activities in this realm have become the de facto standard -- and where the status quo, or effective "no build" selection, is swamped by the influence of political will and thus no longer a viable option.   Thus, projects such as I-87 in NC, I-14 in TX, and others of its ilk will continue to proliferate.  Barring a full-blown depression -- or if or when a reiterated modern version of the '68 national additions is forthcoming (unlikely!), this is the status quo -- for better or worse!               
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 05, 2017, 06:48:13 PM
As far as future interstates in eastern NC are concerned, NCDOT seems to be giving I-42 and I-795 top priority, as they should.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 05, 2017, 09:33:57 PM
<< snips, no disagreement with the rest >>

In the instance of I-87, both factors are in play -- the facility, particularly along US 64, is either at or near Interstate standards already, while the remainder along US 17 has sporadic segments of usable roadway as well.  Add the presence, for the last 26 years, of one of the original ISTEA-based high-priority corridors (#13).  The final catalyst is locally-originated political action stemming from either regional self-interest, simple envy, or both.  And, voila', we've got I-87 (and its offspring I-587).  This is currently how corridors are commissioned -- and occasionally actually constructed; more a matter of someone or something with clout wanting a "piece of the action" rather than any level of deference to the status quo.  Interstate additions are no longer a matter of careful consideration prompted by demonstrated need; they're a way to attract attention to regions and locales whose denizens perceive that this is a way to advance their particular interests.

But about 70 miles of the existing routes is -not- Interstate-standard.  Interstate new construction is very expensive today, and there just isn't a need for that kind of construction here.

I agree with the gist of what you have been saying, that the current process for building new Interstate highways is basically bogus and corrupt.

You also said that the 1968 process of adding 1,500 miles of new Interstate routes was done the way it should be done, with a national distribution process of adding in as many states as possible and in a way that is generally fair overall; and that something like this should be done about every 10 years or so.  Of course much of that mileage was in auxiliary routes (3 digit).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 06, 2017, 05:31:18 AM
<< snips, no disagreement with the rest >>

In the instance of I-87, both factors are in play -- the facility, particularly along US 64, is either at or near Interstate standards already, while the remainder along US 17 has sporadic segments of usable roadway as well.  Add the presence, for the last 26 years, of one of the original ISTEA-based high-priority corridors (#13).  The final catalyst is locally-originated political action stemming from either regional self-interest, simple envy, or both.  And, voila', we've got I-87 (and its offspring I-587).  This is currently how corridors are commissioned -- and occasionally actually constructed; more a matter of someone or something with clout wanting a "piece of the action" rather than any level of deference to the status quo.  Interstate additions are no longer a matter of careful consideration prompted by demonstrated need; they're a way to attract attention to regions and locales whose denizens perceive that this is a way to advance their particular interests.

But about 70 miles of the existing routes is -not- Interstate-standard.  Interstate new construction is very expensive today, and there just isn't a need for that kind of construction here.

I agree with the gist of what you have been saying, that the current process for building new Interstate highways is basically bogus and corrupt.

You also said that the 1968 process of adding 1,500 miles of new Interstate routes was done the way it should be done, with a national distribution process of adding in as many states as possible and in a way that is generally fair overall; and that something like this should be done about every 10 years or so.  Of course much of that mileage was in auxiliary routes (3 digit).

I agree that of all the proposed I-87 corridor, only the full-freeway segments of both US 64 and US 17 will be relatively simple to upgrade; the remainder, all of which lie along US 17, will be difficult and/or costly to bring up to Interstate standards (the Elizabeth City bypass to the contrary), largely due to the wetlands the corridor traverses.  It is obvious that the impetus for the corridor (HPC #13, dating from 1991) came primarily from NC, which obviously wished to reap whatever benefits could be accrued from a Hampton Roads connection to the southwest -- although a Virginia-bound facility along US 58 would have been a much more efficient routing to both southward I-95 and I-85.  Interestingly, US 64 had been completed as a freeway, albeit to sub-Interstate standards, out as far as Tarboro by 1991; once HPC #13 was designated with that year's ISTEA legislation, the remainder out to US 17 was constructed to full Interstate standards, complete with the compliant inner & outer shoulders missing from the original westerly segment.  However, one thing is perplexing just by its absence:  why NC didn't request an Interstate designation along with so many other corridors back when the NHS (1995) legislation was in process -- especially since at least someone with authority within NCDOT calculated that the corridor would eventually be considered for Interstate status; hence the compliant eastern US 64 freeway segment.  Possibly it was thought that since they got the 73/74 composite corridor that year, they weren't about to press their luck with yet another corridor designation. 

Of the approximately 1500 miles added with the 1968 legislation, about 1160 were 2di trunk routes:  new corridors, extensions, and reroutings; this included the initial I-40 extension between I-85 and I-95 (the Wilmington section came a couple of decades later).  Of the remaining 340 miles, a little under 200 miles were Interstate spurs, mostly rural in nature, from trunk routes into cities initially bypassed/avoided by the 1957 system iteration, including I-380 in Iowa, I-185 down to Columbus, GA, I-565 over to Huntsville, AL, and I-164 into Evansville, IN, with the last 140-odd miles actually apportioned to urban/suburban bypasses or loops.   The single longest route added was the I-75 extension from the Tampa area down to Miami (approximately 250 miles); curiously, 3 of the new designations: I-88 in NY, I-27 in TX, and what eventually (1974) became I-43 in WI were each between 120 and 125 miles long.  Even though the legislation had been Congressionally pared down from 4500 to 1500 miles (courtesy of continued Vietnam War expenditures), great pains were taken to distribute new mileage around the nation as needed -- and as dictated by changing population distribution as per the 1965 census estimates.  Nevertheless, a few politically-motivated routings were included in the final draft -- the original I-72 was on occasion described as Everett Dirksen's retirement present to his hometown of Decatur, IL!  But overall the process was relatively clean and straightforward, unlike the machinations that seem to surround the Interstate-addition process today.         
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 06, 2017, 07:18:20 AM
I agree that of all the proposed I-87 corridor, only the full-freeway segments of both US 64 and US 17 will be relatively simple to upgrade; the remainder, all of which lie along US 17, will be difficult and/or costly to bring up to Interstate standards (the Elizabeth City bypass to the contrary), largely due to the wetlands the corridor traverses.  It is obvious that the impetus for the corridor (HPC #13, dating from 1991) came primarily from NC, which obviously wished to reap whatever benefits could be accrued from a Hampton Roads connection to the southwest -- although a Virginia-bound facility along US 58 would have been a much more efficient routing to both southward I-95 and I-85.  Interestingly, US 64 had been completed as a freeway, albeit to sub-Interstate standards, out as far as Tarboro by 1991; once HPC #13 was designated with that year's ISTEA legislation, the remainder out to US 17 was constructed to full Interstate standards, complete with the compliant inner & outer shoulders missing from the original westerly segment.  However, one thing is perplexing just by its absence:  why NC didn't request an Interstate designation along with so many other corridors back when the NHS (1995) legislation was in process -- especially since at least someone with authority within NCDOT calculated that the corridor would eventually be considered for Interstate status; hence the compliant eastern US 64 freeway segment.  Possibly it was thought that since they got the 73/74 composite corridor that year, they weren't about to press their luck with yet another corridor designation. 

Of the approximately 1500 miles added with the 1968 legislation, about 1160 were 2di trunk routes:  new corridors, extensions, and reroutings; this included the initial I-40 extension between I-85 and I-95 (the Wilmington section came a couple of decades later).  Of the remaining 340 miles, a little under 200 miles were Interstate spurs, mostly rural in nature, from trunk routes into cities initially bypassed/avoided by the 1957 system iteration, including I-380 in Iowa, I-185 down to Columbus, GA, I-565 over to Huntsville, AL, and I-164 into Evansville, IN, with the last 140-odd miles actually apportioned to urban/suburban bypasses or loops.   The single longest route added was the I-75 extension from the Tampa area down to Miami (approximately 250 miles); curiously, 3 of the new designations: I-88 in NY, I-27 in TX, and what eventually (1974) became I-43 in WI were each between 120 and 125 miles long.  Even though the legislation had been Congressionally pared down from 4500 to 1500 miles (courtesy of continued Vietnam War expenditures), great pains were taken to distribute new mileage around the nation as needed -- and as dictated by changing population distribution as per the 1965 census estimates.  Nevertheless, a few politically-motivated routings were included in the final draft -- the original I-72 was on occasion described as Everett Dirksen's retirement present to his hometown of Decatur, IL!  But overall the process was relatively clean and straightforward, unlike the machinations that seem to surround the Interstate-addition process today.         

I wonder if there is a list of all the auxiliary routes in the 1968 additions?  While relatively short in mileage, they often were expensive and have high positive impacts.

These are the ones in Virginia --
I-195 Beltline Expressway, 3.5 miles
I-664, northern 9.2 miles including bridge-tunnel
I-595 National Airport Connector, 1.1 miles, funding used to build lower design expressway grade highway on US-1

Maryland, I am pretty sure of these --
I-195 to BWI Airport
I-795 Northwest Expressway, 6.0 mile portion from I-695 to west of Owings Mills Blvd.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 06, 2017, 07:42:07 AM
Not aware of a list of the additions that were approved (only that then-Secretary Boyd announced them on December 13, 1968), but Kurumi has a list of the submitted requests (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html).

I do know of at least one approved 1968 addition that is not on Kurumi's request list:  I-394 MN.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 06, 2017, 01:19:19 PM
Not aware of a list of the additions that were approved (only that then-Secretary Boyd announced them on December 13, 1968), but Kurumi has a list of the submitted requests (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html).
I do know of at least one approved 1968 addition that is not on Kurumi's request list:  I-394 MN.

I can see a number that weren't approved.

I was trying to think of any that were in PA or NJ.  The only one that I can think of is I-895, which was never built.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 06, 2017, 04:02:02 PM
Not aware of a list of the additions that were approved (only that then-Secretary Boyd announced them on December 13, 1968), but Kurumi has a list of the submitted requests (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html).
I do know of at least one approved 1968 addition that is not on Kurumi's request list:  I-394 MN.

I can see a number that weren't approved.

I was trying to think of any that were in PA or NJ.  The only one that I can think of is I-895, which was never built.

Out here on the West Coast, the major 3di to be approved in '68 was I-105 in L.A.  Curiously, the original I-15 extension plans essentially followed US 395 from Colton through Riverside and then down to San Diego.  The shift to the former CA 31 and 71 alignments via Ontario and Corona didn't happen until early 1971, at which time the designation of I-15E was requested for the remainder of original I-15 from Colton to Devore; that segment was posted as such at the end of 1972.  The I-15E southern extension to the (then) eastern CA 60/US 395 junction in Moreno Valley was posted by spring 1973, with "temporary" signage along the US 395 expressway south of there to Perris (and sporadically beyond that down to Temecula).  The remainder of US 395 was also sporadically signed as "Temporary I-15"; much of that route remained rural 2-lane highway at that time.  The I-215 designation didn't replace 15E until 1982 after suffixed routes fell out of favor. 

The only other 1968 west coast activity was the rerouting of I-82 in Washington & Oregon away from a more or less direct line between Prosser, WA and Hinkle, OR and to an alignment that would more directly serve the "Tri-City" metro area (Richland/Kennewick/Pasco); besides adding some 24 miles to I-82, which skirted the southwest corner of the metro complex, the I-182 spur into Pasco was also established.  The reroute also enabled the alignment to make use of the existing Columbia River bridge at Umatilla, which became the eastbound half of the entire 4-lane set of bridges.

   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 08, 2017, 08:56:48 AM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave.  The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.

According to today's article, that connector is indeed a possible routing for I-87.

http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/08/NCDOT-mulls-I-87-route-to-Currituck.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/08/NCDOT-mulls-I-87-route-to-Currituck.html)

Quote
CAMDEN — Should the proposed new Interstate 87 be aligned with U.S. Highway 17 as it travels through Camden County into Chesapeake, Virginia, or should it veer northeastward through northern Currituck before heading into Chesapeake?

That was a topic of discussion for Camden commissioners during a meeting with a N.C. Department of Transportation official last week.

Commissioners met with Shane York, a feasibility studies engineer with NCDOT, about the proposed new interstate highway that, should it be funded, would link Raleigh and Norfolk, Virginia, by traveling through Rocky Mount, Williamston, Edenton, Hertford and Elizabeth City.   

York advised Camden officials that late last year, Currituck County officials contacted NCDOT about the prospect of routing I-87 through northern Currituck into Virginia instead along the current path of U.S. 17 into Virginia.

"We would like you to give us a cost estimate for that, too, as a possible alternate," York said, quoting Currituck officials.

York said Currituck’s request had “some political pull.” He said it was his understanding that Virginia's transportation secretary has also expressed interest in routing I-87 through northern Currituck, instead of following following the current path of U.S. 17. As a result, an alternate route for I-87, featuring an east-west connector through northern Currituck, is part of the drawings for the proposed highway.

Camden interim Manager Stephanie Humphries made clear the county supports the connector into northern Currituck, provided there’s no detrimental effect to planning and development in Camden. County officials want assurances from NCDOT that an I-87 through Camden would feature easy access to both the Dismal Swamp Canal Welcome Center and the Dismal Swamp State Park, both key assets for Camden. They also want assurances that there won't be any harm to commercial and industrial sites or proposed residential development sites in northern Camden.

As proposed, the east-west connector would begin east of U.S. 17, just above the welcome center and the state park in northern Camden. It would extend just below the state line into northern Currituck, site of that county’s proposed Moyock Mega-Site commercial and residential project.

From there, the connector would travel slightly northeast into Virginia, linking with Virginia Highway 168 through a proposed interchange just north of the Border Station convenience store. Virginia 168 is a short segment of stop-and-go roadway before it becomes the tolled Chesapeake Expressway and a connector to Interstates 64 and 464.

Camden Economic Development Director Charlie Bauman indicated he was a little concerned about the proposed east-west connector through Currituck, given that the whole point of I-87 is to speed traffic between Norfolk and Raleigh.

Bauman said he believes having I-87 aligned with both U.S. 17 and Dominion Boulevard on through to I-64 and I-464 is "the shortest distance between two points."

"That's why we're a little confused about wanting to route traffic through a connector into Virginia and dumping it into the Chesapeake Expressway," he said.

Bauman said he believes traffic also would want to travel the shortest route.

"Consumer traffic is really going to, we think, travel that route, instead of going round the elbow" to get to I-64 and I-464, he told York.

Camden Board of Commissioners Chairman Clayton Riggs said he, too, believes I-87 needs to feature the most direct route to the Port of Virginia.

"It makes a lot more sense to go straight up 17 than it does to come through the connector road to go to the port," he said.

Camden Commissioner Garry Meiggs, however, said he believes the closest route depends on which port a trucker is driving toward because Hampton Roads has multiple ports.

Asked last month whether the city of Chesapeake has a position on which route I-87 should go, spokeswoman Karen Meyers said in an email that Chesapeake hasn’t weighed in on a specific location yet. Nonetheless, the city believes I-87 should generally follow U.S. 17 and Dominion Boulevard to I-64 and I-464, she said.

Virginia Transportation Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick said in an email Friday that Virginia Department of Transportation have discussed the proposed I-87 with their counterparts in North Carolina.

“We have also discussed the corridor with NCDOT leadership about a year ago,” Kilpatrick said. “They made us aware of this east-west connector option and the connection to Virginia Route 168 near the state line.”

Asked if he had any preference about the route for I-87, he indicated VDOT isn’t close to any decision yet.

“We have not yet engaged the interested parties regarding potential alignments. We are just beginning the study process,” he said.

Much of York’s meeting with Camden officials centered on how I-87 would affect access to both the Dismal Swamp Canal Welcome Center and the Dismal Swamp State Park. Current plans for I-87 call for its construction just east of U.S. 17 in the area of the welcome center and the park.

Nortbound I-87 traffic would get to the welcome center and the park by exiting at an interchange at McPherson Road. Soundbound I-87 traffic would exit onto the current U.S. 17 alignment to get to the welcome center and the park.

Welcome Center Director Donna Stewart, who participated in the meeting, said the center would like to see an interchange as easy as possible for motorists to navigate. She has good reason for wanting easy access.

Welcome center data show slightly more than 26,400 people sought information or directions at the center in 2016. Traffic counts also show nearly 673,600 people visited the site in 2016. That number is determined from a formula that counts two to three people in each visiting vehicle.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 08, 2017, 06:39:30 PM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave.  The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.

According to today's article, that connector is indeed a possible routing for I-87.

Wow!  This sure looks like everyone in the NE corner of NC is trying to get a slice of Interstate pie!  From the text of the discussion, it looks like the eastern option entering VA along (MSR) 168 would likely depart NB from somewhere along the existing Elizabeth City bypass and head east, largely following NC 34 up to 168.  As a large-scale housing/commercial Moyock-based development was cited in the article, it's likely someone is projecting a rerouted I-87 as a dual-directional access route for this new undertaking -- providing both a freeway corridor north into the Hampton Roads area as well as southwest into the rest of NC.  From the discussion, it looks as if the locals have yet to make up their minds about what's best for their area -- and VA DOT is still in the process of scratching their heads about I-87 (but no one seems to know if it will even be prioritized regardless of alignment).  And the local tourist industry is also weighing in regarding access to their attractions -- this whole thing looks like a multi-ring circus.  But then nothing about any facility projected to cross this particular state line has ever been straightforward.  It just may be that NCDOT is hedging their bets -- and using the locals as a vehicle to do so -- about VA's willingness to follow through on a freeway alignment along US 17 -- choosing to go where there's already a more complete facility across the state line.  I'll be willing to bet that this thing drags on for at least several years before a cross-border alignment is selected -- sending the prospects for a completed corridor way, way off into the future.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 08, 2017, 08:18:17 PM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave.  The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.
According to today's article, that connector is indeed a possible routing for I-87.
Wow!  This sure looks like everyone in the NE corner of NC is trying to get a slice of Interstate pie!  From the text of the discussion, it looks like the eastern option entering VA along (MSR) 168 would likely depart NB from somewhere along the existing Elizabeth City bypass and head east, largely following NC 34 up to 168.  As a large-scale housing/commercial Moyock-based development was cited in the article, it's likely someone is projecting a rerouted I-87 as a dual-directional access route for this new undertaking -- providing both a freeway corridor north into the Hampton Roads area as well as southwest into the rest of NC.  From the discussion, it looks as if the locals have yet to make up their minds about what's best for their area -- and VA DOT is still in the process of scratching their heads about I-87 (but no one seems to know if it will even be prioritized regardless of alignment).  And the local tourist industry is also weighing in regarding access to their attractions -- this whole thing looks like a multi-ring circus.  But then nothing about any facility projected to cross this particular state line has ever been straightforward.  It just may be that NCDOT is hedging their bets -- and using the locals as a vehicle to do so -- about VA's willingness to follow through on a freeway alignment along US 17 -- choosing to go where there's already a more complete facility across the state line.  I'll be willing to bet that this thing drags on for at least several years before a cross-border alignment is selected -- sending the prospects for a completed corridor way, way off into the future.   

They could actually make a serious effort to engage VDOT on this, but looks like they haven't, and that is a poor way to plan an inter-state corridor.

I disagree that VA-168 is "a more complete facility" than US-17, as the portion last built in 2001 (that south of the Great Bridge Bypass) has a cross-section that is substandard for an Interstate highway, the median is too narrow and the roadsides are too narrow; they would need more right-of-way along the whole length and widened roadsides, and the last mile has at-grade intersections; granted that VA-168 northward to I-64 is a full freeway except for that last mile.  The section of VA US-17 that has at-grade intersections is built to Interstate standards in alignment and cross-section, and has a limited access right-of-way; lacking is about 6 overpass bridges and 2 diamond interchanges.

These two highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and that will militate against the city and the state wanting to spend more money on highways that have already gotten a lot of money in the last 20 years.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 09, 2017, 04:08:11 AM
The article LM117 posted has a link to the presentation NCDOT gave.  The conceptual design of that US 17/NC 168 connector has a loop ramp from the connector to SB US 17, which suggests to me that it would *NOT* be part of I-87 and that I-87 would continue along US 17 into Virginia.
According to today's article, that connector is indeed a possible routing for I-87.
Wow!  This sure looks like everyone in the NE corner of NC is trying to get a slice of Interstate pie!  From the text of the discussion, it looks like the eastern option entering VA along (MSR) 168 would likely depart NB from somewhere along the existing Elizabeth City bypass and head east, largely following NC 34 up to 168.  As a large-scale housing/commercial Moyock-based development was cited in the article, it's likely someone is projecting a rerouted I-87 as a dual-directional access route for this new undertaking -- providing both a freeway corridor north into the Hampton Roads area as well as southwest into the rest of NC.  From the discussion, it looks as if the locals have yet to make up their minds about what's best for their area -- and VA DOT is still in the process of scratching their heads about I-87 (but no one seems to know if it will even be prioritized regardless of alignment).  And the local tourist industry is also weighing in regarding access to their attractions -- this whole thing looks like a multi-ring circus.  But then nothing about any facility projected to cross this particular state line has ever been straightforward.  It just may be that NCDOT is hedging their bets -- and using the locals as a vehicle to do so -- about VA's willingness to follow through on a freeway alignment along US 17 -- choosing to go where there's already a more complete facility across the state line.  I'll be willing to bet that this thing drags on for at least several years before a cross-border alignment is selected -- sending the prospects for a completed corridor way, way off into the future.   

They could actually make a serious effort to engage VDOT on this, but looks like they haven't, and that is a poor way to plan an inter-state corridor.

I disagree that VA-168 is "a more complete facility" than US-17, as the portion last built in 2001 (that south of the Great Bridge Bypass) has a cross-section that is substandard for an Interstate highway, the median is too narrow and the roadsides are too narrow; they would need more right-of-way along the whole length and widened roadsides, and the last mile has at-grade intersections; granted that VA-168 northward to I-64 is a full freeway except for that last mile.  The section of VA US-17 that has at-grade intersections is built to Interstate standards in alignment and cross-section, and has a limited access right-of-way; lacking is about 6 overpass bridges and 2 diamond interchanges.

These two highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and that will militate against the city and the state wanting to spend more money on highways that have already gotten a lot of money in the last 20 years.

I'm in full agreement with planning efforts that place I-87 (still think it's a dumbass number for this corridor!) on US 17 all the way through Chesapeake to I-64; but until the parties involved in VA sign on to that concept, it's easy to see, given VA's track record to date, how NC folks might be inclined to devise as many alternate plans as feasible -- which in this instance is practically limited to the 17 and 168 corridors; new-terrain routes through the heart of the Great Dismal are obviously a non-starter.  All that can be done at this time is to hope the powers that be in VA and the city of Chesapeake step back and look at what they've already done on Dominion Blvd. to enhance that route -- and elect to simply extend that effort down US 17 to the state line. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 09, 2017, 07:01:09 AM
These two highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and that will militate against the city and the state wanting to spend more money on highways that have already gotten a lot of money in the last 20 years.
I'm in full agreement with planning efforts that place I-87 (still think it's a dumbass number for this corridor!) on US 17 all the way through Chesapeake to I-64; but until the parties involved in VA sign on to that concept, it's easy to see, given VA's track record to date, how NC folks might be inclined to devise as many alternate plans as feasible -- which in this instance is practically limited to the 17 and 168 corridors; new-terrain routes through the heart of the Great Dismal are obviously a non-starter.  All that can be done at this time is to hope the powers that be in VA and the city of Chesapeake step back and look at what they've already done on Dominion Blvd. to enhance that route -- and elect to simply extend that effort down US 17 to the state line. 

But why?  The Dominion Boulevard Project cost $430 million.  Like I said from the city and state perspective  those highways are adequate for the foreseeable future.  THSDOT has their own agenda.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 09, 2017, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: sparker
From the text of the discussion, it looks like the eastern option entering VA along (MSR) 168 would likely depart NB from somewhere along the existing Elizabeth City bypass and head east, largely following NC 34 up to 168.

None of the concepts I've seen/read include this routing.  The concept corridor that has been mapped out, and is referred to in the article, leaves US 17 near the Welcome Center and meets 168 just north of the state line.

Quote from: Beltway
The section of VA US-17 that has at-grade intersections is built to Interstate standards in alignment and cross-section, and has a limited access right-of-way; lacking is about 6 overpass bridges and 2 diamond interchanges.

Not fully.  The section they did about a decade ago, from the state line up to past BUSINESS 17, has 8ft outside shoulders instead of the standard 10ft.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 09, 2017, 04:20:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway
The section of VA US-17 that has at-grade intersections is built to Interstate standards in alignment and cross-section, and has a limited access right-of-way; lacking is about 6 overpass bridges and 2 diamond interchanges.
Not fully.  The section they did about a decade ago, from the state line up to past BUSINESS 17, has 8ft outside shoulders instead of the standard 10ft.

Fer sure?  Looks like 10 feet wide.  If not there is ample space to widen it by 2 feet, could even be done in a maintenance resurfacing project like has been done in many other places.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/US17-Chesapeake-9.jpg

BTW, compare that to the narrow roadsides and narrow R/W on the Chesapeake Expressway.
From the Indian Creek Road overpass --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA168_ICR_N.jpg
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 09, 2017, 05:54:15 PM
When they began construction of it around the time I left Norfolk the first time, I recall articles and such talking about the design, and how it was to be 8ft shoulders.  There are definitely stretches where it is clear the shoulder is narrower.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 09, 2017, 08:42:35 PM
When they began construction of it around the time I left Norfolk the first time, I recall articles and such talking about the design, and how it was to be 8ft shoulders.  There are definitely stretches where it is clear the shoulder is narrower.

That is the standard shoulder on the 11.6-mile-long Route US-17 Relocation Project built 2003-2005.

I will grant the eyeball can not always estimate a shoulder width exactly.

I now see on my website article "US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake" that was last updated in 2007 --

"The median width is 42 feet, the traffic lanes are 12 feet wide, the paved right shoulders are 8 feet wide, and the paved left shoulders are 4 feet wide.  Clear roadsides are typically 20 wide or wider.  The highway is elevated 8 feet above the existing low-lying terrain.  The highway is on a limited access right-of-way.
(Source: the VDOT design plans for the project)."
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 10, 2017, 12:38:15 AM
When they began construction of it around the time I left Norfolk the first time, I recall articles and such talking about the design, and how it was to be 8ft shoulders.  There are definitely stretches where it is clear the shoulder is narrower.

That is the standard shoulder on the 11.6-mile-long Route US-17 Relocation Project built 2003-2005.

I will grant the eyeball can not always estimate a shoulder width exactly.

I now see on my website article "US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake" that was last updated in 2007 --

"The median width is 42 feet, the traffic lanes are 12 feet wide, the paved right shoulders are 8 feet wide, and the paved left shoulders are 4 feet wide.  Clear roadsides are typically 20 wide or wider.  The highway is elevated 8 feet above the existing low-lying terrain.  The highway is on a limited access right-of-way.
(Source: the VDOT design plans for the project)."

Then the basic question is:  will both VDOT and the City of Chesapeake commit to any semblance of a long-term plan to upgrade that section of US 17 with grade separations and interchanges as needed?  Because of the swamp terrain, they may be able to get some sort of waivers for that "missing" 2 feet of outer shoulder.  But even if the route is shunted over to MSR 168, there's still the matter of the southernmost couple of miles of 168 in VA, which remains a multilane facility with scant access control.  One would think that on balance the US 17 alignment would pose less a problem for upgrading than 168 -- although a "devil's advocate" approach would cite the "double duty" of an I-87 routed accordingly -- both as the major regional connector south of greater Hampton Roads and as a tourism corridor to the Outer Banks. 

But the principal obstacle to getting the "north-of-the border" section of I-87 done is simply that regardless of alignment most of the benefit of this corridor development accrues to NC rather than VA or its cities traversed by the highway.  I'd venture a guess that that fact sticks in the craw of VA political types -- and thus they're in no hurry to address this corridor beyond what they've already done as a local server.     
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 10, 2017, 06:12:12 AM
VA asked NCDOT to consider VA-168 because other than near the state line, no new interchanges will need to be built, though some of the existing ones may need modified. It's probably cheaper to upgrade VA-168 than US-17, which still has at-grades surrounded by businesses. However, VA might as well forget about the idea since the Army Corps of Engineers would never approve the connector route when there's an existing 4-lane highway nearby.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 06:52:17 AM
Then the basic question is:  will both VDOT and the City of Chesapeake commit to any semblance of a long-term plan to upgrade that section of US 17 with grade separations and interchanges as needed?  Because of the swamp terrain, they may be able to get some sort of waivers for that "missing" 2 feet of outer shoulder.  But even if the route is shunted over to MSR 168, there's still the matter of the southernmost couple of miles of 168 in VA, which remains a multilane facility with scant access control.  One would think that on balance the US 17 alignment would pose less a problem for upgrading than 168 -- although a "devil's advocate" approach would cite the "double duty" of an I-87 routed accordingly -- both as the major regional connector south of greater Hampton Roads and as a tourism corridor to the Outer Banks. 
But the principal obstacle to getting the "north-of-the border" section of I-87 done is simply that regardless of alignment most of the benefit of this corridor development accrues to NC rather than VA or its cities traversed by the highway.  I'd venture a guess that that fact sticks in the craw of VA political types -- and thus they're in no hurry to address this corridor beyond what they've already done as a local server.     

These US-17 and VA-168 highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and will be for the foreseeable future.  Therefore they are not on any radar screen for upgrading them to any higher type highway.  The Tar Heel State is just being annoying here.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 10, 2017, 12:13:15 PM
Then the basic question is:  will both VDOT and the City of Chesapeake commit to any semblance of a long-term plan to upgrade that section of US 17 with grade separations and interchanges as needed?  Because of the swamp terrain, they may be able to get some sort of waivers for that "missing" 2 feet of outer shoulder.  But even if the route is shunted over to MSR 168, there's still the matter of the southernmost couple of miles of 168 in VA, which remains a multilane facility with scant access control.  One would think that on balance the US 17 alignment would pose less a problem for upgrading than 168 -- although a "devil's advocate" approach would cite the "double duty" of an I-87 routed accordingly -- both as the major regional connector south of greater Hampton Roads and as a tourism corridor to the Outer Banks. 
But the principal obstacle to getting the "north-of-the border" section of I-87 done is simply that regardless of alignment most of the benefit of this corridor development accrues to NC rather than VA or its cities traversed by the highway.  I'd venture a guess that that fact sticks in the craw of VA political types -- and thus they're in no hurry to address this corridor beyond what they've already done as a local server.     

These US-17 and VA-168 highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and will be for the foreseeable future.  Therefore they are not on any radar screen for upgrading them to any higher type highway.  The Tar Heel State is just being annoying here.

Since the entire US 17 facility is already 4-lane divided from the state line to I-64, I can certainly see that unless there's local pressure for grade separations (more likely to happen re Dominion than the N-S segment through the swamp), any further improvement may be postponed within the planning entities of VDOT and Chesapeake as long as is feasible -- just posting "Future I-87 Corridor" signs along the way and leaving it at that.  Nevertheless, if NC runs a completed I-87 up to the state line and the status quo persists north of there, pressure from several quarters (besides simply NCDOT and official allies, this may include "unofficial" actors such as trucking lobbies and even AAA) to effect the upgrades within VA may increase the noise level to the point where doing the upgrades poses less of a problem than maintaining a "no (further) build" position.

For better or worse, the political/publicity aspect of the road building process has emerged as the leading edge of virtually all plans, Interstate additions or not -- such is the nature of unfunded mandates combined with the hoopla surrounding the designation of a new corridor.  In the case of this particular corridor, it's likely that NC being "annoying" is viewed within their own circles as simply maintaining the pressure to get their project completed as planned.  The argument of simple adequacy isn't liable to prevail in the long run -- although it's a perfectly useful delaying tactic.  IMO, I-87 will eventually make it all the way to I-64 -- but it'll take a good deal of time and a high and continuous level of pressure to make this happen. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 12:36:08 PM
These US-17 and VA-168 highways in the City of Chesapeake are perfectly adequate as they are, and will be for the foreseeable future.  Therefore they are not on any radar screen for upgrading them to any higher type highway.  The Tar Heel State is just being annoying here.
Since the entire US 17 facility is already 4-lane divided from the state line to I-64, I can certainly see that unless there's local pressure for grade separations (more likely to happen re Dominion than the N-S segment through the swamp), any further improvement may be postponed within the planning entities of VDOT and Chesapeake as long as is feasible -- just posting "Future I-87 Corridor" signs along the way and leaving it at that.  Nevertheless, if NC runs a completed I-87 up to the state line and the status quo persists north of there, pressure from several quarters (besides simply NCDOT and official allies, this may include "unofficial" actors such as trucking lobbies and even AAA) to effect the upgrades within VA may increase the noise level to the point where doing the upgrades poses less of a problem than maintaining a "no (further) build" position.
For better or worse, the political/publicity aspect of the road building process has emerged as the leading edge of virtually all plans, Interstate additions or not -- such is the nature of unfunded mandates combined with the hoopla surrounding the designation of a new corridor.  In the case of this particular corridor, it's likely that NC being "annoying" is viewed within their own circles as simply maintaining the pressure to get their project completed as planned.  The argument of simple adequacy isn't liable to prevail in the long run -- although it's a perfectly useful delaying tactic.  IMO, I-87 will eventually make it all the way to I-64 -- but it'll take a good deal of time and a high and continuous level of pressure to make this happen. 

It is a useless route proposal, for interstate traffic, for interregional traffic, and for local traffic.  Out of the way connection between I-95 and South Hampton Roads, only a few small towns along the NC part of the route east of Rocky Mount, no major industries.  I don't see any warrants for it even 30 years from today.

East of Rocky Mount the existing US-64 and US-17 are more than adequate for many years if not decades to come.  Not enough there to warrant more than a 4-lane interregional highway like what is already there.

For connection between I-95 and South Hampton Roads, US-58 and I-95 is about 25 miles shorter, distance in and of itself dismiss using the US-64 and US-17 corridor.  Particularly for large trucks.  US-58 and I-95 are not going to stand still on improvements over the next 20 years, either.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 10, 2017, 03:08:39 PM
Despite what it's billed as, I-87's true purpose isn't really to connect Raleigh and Norfolk, but to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia and of course, Raleigh. It's already spawned I-587, giving the hub of eastern NC, Greenville, an interstate link to I-95 and Raleigh. It also set up the possibility of an I-x87 connecting Kinston's Global Transpark and Greenville to Hampton Roads, dubbed the "Gateway Corridor". It didn't get anywhere because of last year's elections, but the Gateway Corridor idea is still alive and well in Kinston and Greenville.

https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/9/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation (https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/9/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation)

The city of Raleigh supports I-87 because it gives them a (somewhat) northerly connection to I-95 and it would be much easier to upgrade US-64 than US-1 between I-540 and I-85.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 10, 2017, 05:15:22 PM
It is a useless route proposal, for interstate traffic, for interregional traffic, and for local traffic.  Out of the way connection between I-95 and South Hampton Roads, only a few small towns along the NC part of the route east of Rocky Mount, no major industries.  I don't see any warrants for it even 30 years from today.

East of Rocky Mount the existing US-64 and US-17 are more than adequate for many years if not decades to come.  Not enough there to warrant more than a 4-lane interregional highway like what is already there.

For connection between I-95 and South Hampton Roads, US-58 and I-95 is about 25 miles shorter, distance in and of itself dismiss using the US-64 and US-17 corridor.  Particularly for large trucks.  US-58 and I-95 are not going to stand still on improvements over the next 20 years, either.

What I'm commenting on here is the reality of what's happening out there in transportation land -- not on the relative utility of the proposed I-87 corridor vis-à-vis the obviously shorter and more direct US 58 corridor within VA.  All things being equal, US 58 should and would have been something like "I-56" from I-85 east to Chesapeake decades ago.  But that hasn't happened -- with a great deal of the reason being that it's situated within 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. 

The one consistent thing about any new Interstate corridor under the present add-on methodology is:  someone has to ask for it!!! Again, as I've repeated in this forum until I'm blue in the face, the current system favors want coupled with political will and a healthy heaping of cojones on the part of the instigators.  What it disregards is a process that engages in compiling long drawn-out piles of data that point to the most effectual routing between specific points; in this particular instance, a US 58 facility would, hands down, emerge on top of any comparison.  But there isn't a point of comparison seen.  The I-87 rationale is, at least within NC, to wit: 

A connector from Hampton Roads to southerly points along I-95 and by extension I-85 is long overdue; there's a designated corridor that's been in place for a quarter-century -- and it serves eastern NC along the way -- and it's about half completed to at least upgradeable standards.  Yeah, it kind of snakes its way along the north side of one of our estuaries -- but to us (NC) that's a blessing, especially if we want to upgrade the rest of US 17 -- part of that whole project will be done courtesy of I-87.  We wanted this route 25 years ago, but our attention was focused elsewhere in the state; we're finally getting around to addressing this issue.  And we know VA's history makes it likely that they'll drag their feet about even the short connecting section in their state; while they have a potentially superior corridor available to them, they're not doing much about it.  In short, we're the only game in town; everyone else seems to be sitting it out! 

To reiterate a cliche': you gotta be in it to win it! What NC is doing is simple: the I-87 routing may not be the best option on paper -- far from it -- but it is much more into the process of development than any other facility serving its particular end points.  And once the NC portion is either done or close to it, they'll do what they have to put pressure on VA to make that final connection. 

As it sits, the process of commissioning and constructing a new Interstate corridor comes down to more of a utilitarian process than one based on a priori conceptualizations.  And as has been demonstrated, NC is willing to take full advantage of that situation -- "no build" seems to not be an available option down there, whereas it appears to be the default position north of the state line.  All NC is doing is electing not to reject the merely good while holding out for the very best/optimal (which wouldn't have been sited within their state anyway!).       
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 10, 2017, 05:47:45 PM
I have a feeling Williamston will be as far north or east as Interstate 87 South will ever go.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 06:34:23 PM
Despite what it's billed as, I-87's true purpose isn't really to connect Raleigh and Norfolk, but to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia and of course, Raleigh.

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.

It's already spawned I-587, giving the hub of eastern NC, Greenville, an interstate link to I-95 and Raleigh. It also set up the possibility of an I-x87 connecting Kinston's Global Transpark and Greenville to Hampton Roads, dubbed the "Gateway Corridor". It didn't get anywhere because of last year's elections, but the Gateway Corridor idea is still alive and well in Kinston and Greenville.

The I-587 proposal is essentially an x95, and could be designated as such.

The city of Raleigh supports I-87 because it gives them a (somewhat) northerly connection to I-95 and it would be much easier to upgrade US-64 than US-1 between I-540 and I-85.

No argument with an Interstate highway between Raleigh and I-95, they have a full freeway now, and that route was already designated as Future I-495.  It doesn't need to go east of I-95.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 10, 2017, 08:48:47 PM
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:

Quote
The I-587 proposal is essentially an x95, and could be designated as such.

I-595 was the original proposal, but that changed when Future I-495 was taken over by Future I-87.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 10, 2017, 09:24:03 PM
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.  US-64 already acts as an artery that the region south of US-64 can connect to, and Kinston is about 30 miles from there.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 11, 2017, 06:07:35 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!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey 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


Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 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.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 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 (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)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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 (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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker 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 (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!     

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker 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).     
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker 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.           
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey 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

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker 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! 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: fillup420 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker 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-à-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.       
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker 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.     
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker 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.     
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker 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! 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 14, 2017, 07:59:43 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! 

Except they can't make a decision on what roads are built in other states, or make assumptions about them.  Major highways should not be built on one-dimensional justifications.

The Port of Virginia already has an extensive highway and railroad system connecting to the west and northwest of the port, with warehouses and distribution centers.

These eastern cities have large established ports -- Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Brunswick, Savannah, Charleston, Hampton Roads, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Providence, Boston, Portland.  Panamax imports will be well distributed among them, not to mention at least 7 ports on the Gulf of Mexico.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 14, 2017, 03:13:00 PM
In that case, NC will just build the corridor up to the state line and let it go at that -- and let VA take flack from road users pissing & moaning about being held up at traffic lights on Dominion (probably nary a peep about the swamp section of US 17 unless a few major traffic accidents -- like T-bones -- occur as a result of cross traffic).  I suppose if VA agrees to post "TO I-87" trailblazers along US 17 and its approaches that would be a reasonable interim situation until such time as upgrades are approved and constructed.  But I don't see VA reluctance quashing the NC portion of the project; to its backers, there's too much at stake to throw in the towel; its not unlikely that their plan calls for doing what they can on their side of the playing field and then applying continuous pressure on the VA actors until (a) a change in attitude occurs over time within VA transportation circles or (b) in time VDOT and cohorts capitulate just so they don't have to deal with a constant barrage of entreaties from south of the border. 

The word should, ensconced in a priori conceptualizations as it is, has little or no value in today's hyper-utilitarian world of transportation planning & policy.  Relatively few agencies or interests can afford to disregard the doable simply because it isn't optimal.  This corridor certainly fits that category -- believe me, if I were planning a SE Interstate-grade outlet from Hampton Roads US 17 would be, well, about my 3rd or 4th choice.  But if that's where the funding is headed, then the die has indeed been cast.  There might be consequences for VA if they don't follow through -- then, again, those may well prove to be minimal.  So be prepared for construction south of the state line and a shitload of inbound emails, phone calls, and political pressure to the north.  That's the way things seem to be done these days, for better or worse!     
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 14, 2017, 04:09:08 PM
It would be somewhat amusing if NC is desperate enough to somehow manage to fund VA's portion of the highway upgrades.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on October 14, 2017, 05:56:04 PM
ISTM that Virginia is in the position that it can wait for North Carolina to build its portion and then see if it actually brings the additional truck traffic NC thinks will occur.  Then VDOT can upgrade US 17 if the traffic actually materializes that overpowers the 2 remaining stop-lighted intersections.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 14, 2017, 07:17:07 PM
ISTM that Virginia is in the position that it can wait for North Carolina to build its portion and then see if it actually brings the additional truck traffic NC thinks will occur.  Then VDOT can upgrade US 17 if the traffic actually materializes that overpowers the 2 remaining stop-lighted intersections.

Those two signalized intersections are on the southern part of the recently widened Dominion Boulevard.  If the need arises in the future then they can build interchanges there.

Sparker seems to be driving really hard on this I-87 proposal.  I wonder that if he isn't on the Eastern NC CoC, then what is he doing differently than if he is on the Eastern NC CoC?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 14, 2017, 08:39:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway
These eastern cities have large established ports -- Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Brunswick, Savannah, Charleston, Hampton Roads, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Providence, Boston, Portland.  Panamax imports will be well distributed among them, not to mention at least 7 ports on the Gulf of Mexico.

Norfolk *MAY* have a leg up and pick up more PANAMAX traffic than most of the others mentioned, given that it and NYC's port approaches are naturally deep.  Norfolk is also regularly dredged to close-to-PANAMAX-size standards because of the aircraft carriers stationed there.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 14, 2017, 09:32:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway
These eastern cities have large established ports -- Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Brunswick, Savannah, Charleston, Hampton Roads, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Providence, Boston, Portland.  Panamax imports will be well distributed among them, not to mention at least 7 ports on the Gulf of Mexico.
Norfolk *MAY* have a leg up and pick up more PANAMAX traffic than most of the others mentioned, given that it and NYC's port approaches are naturally deep.  Norfolk is also regularly dredged to close-to-PANAMAX-size standards because of the aircraft carriers stationed there.

Nearly all eastern ports meet current Panamax containership standards, 39-40 feet depth.
As the containership fleet is upgraded to larger ships, there are later Panamax stages.
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/conc4en/uswaterwaysystem.html

Four ports currently meet the later standard for 48-50 foot depth -- Miami, Hampton Roads, Baltimore and NY-NJ.

Other eastern and gulf ports have plans to upgrade to at or near that depth --
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/appl1en/table_east_coast_port_projects.html

The dredging projects are dynamic and are part of the means of competition for containership traffic.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 15, 2017, 09:18:54 PM
ISTM that Virginia is in the position that it can wait for North Carolina to build its portion and then see if it actually brings the additional truck traffic NC thinks will occur.  Then VDOT can upgrade US 17 if the traffic actually materializes that overpowers the 2 remaining stop-lighted intersections.

Those two signalized intersections are on the southern part of the recently widened Dominion Boulevard.  If the need arises in the future then they can build interchanges there.

Sparker seems to be driving really hard on this I-87 proposal.  I wonder that if he isn't on the Eastern NC CoC, then what is he doing differently than if he is on the Eastern NC CoC?

FYI, I'm (obviously) not on any NC CoC or is my consultation firm contracted by any NC interests at this time.  I just think that some iteration of a Hampton Roads Interstate-grade corridor providing access to the southwest has been long overdue, considering the growth of both the area and its port facilities.  Couple this with the population and commercial growth of the NC "Research Triangle" and you have an obvious "target" zone for the other end of such a corridor.  Now, again obviously, the corridor doesn't have to directly serve the area; all it needs to do is feed into an existing facility that does so.  If VA had had the wherewithal to promote US 58 as the most efficient of all the corridor possibilities (which it actually is!), a really useful facility would have already been in use -- one that could access I-85 and all the areas along its length, as well as I-95 -- and through the short US 64 section between Raleigh and I-95 originally propos ed and partially signed as I-495 -- the rest of the "Triangle".  But, for various reasons (mainly because it's in Virginia!) that didn't occur.  So, 25 years after it was codified as HPC #13, the corridor (which, IMO, should have used US 13 rather than the less direct US 17) was finally folded into the Interstate compendium.  No, it's not the optimal choice; the corridor as legislated never was to begin with.  But it's there, and NC interests are behind it to the point that it's pretty much a lock for construction over the next 15 years or so (of course, depending upon the whims of in-state politicos).  Attempts to derail this process, absent a viable alternative, would be at best quixotic and a waste of effort.  And I for one applaud any efforts to effect needed corridors; while I would prefer a more efficient alternative, I don't dismiss the imperfect just because it is imperfect.  And considering the proclivities within NC, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see, in the next 20-25 years or so, full development of US 17 between Williamston and Wilmington as an Interstate-grade route -- and at least the northern/I-87 portion of that would have been developed ahead of the inevitable inflationary cycle. 

Let's put it this way -- as someone who's studied this sort of thing for close to a half-century -- and seen the process go through many iterations only to end up as a political football -- any serious attempt to establish a viable Interstate corridor -- albeit often a flawed example -- is something I see as a positive development.  There's not a project across the country of this type of which I've developed a white-hot despising despite shortcomings -- I'm just glad to see activity in the arena -- it's reassuring to see that the whole notion of efficient interregional roadways hasn't been cast aside for ideological or cynical reasons. 

Just as "Beltway" wonders about my motivations here; I also wonder what is happening on their side of the issue -- why the adamant dismissal of this particular corridor.  I can see -- but not agree with -- a postion that the Interstate system doesn't need expansion, and that current roads are adequate for their purposes -- or even a standpoint that requires a degree of vetting of such corridors that only the very most deserving survive the process.  And in a way I can sympathize with those who decry the transformation of the Interstate-designation process from a merit-based approach to one where political considerations more often than not prevail.  But I'm pretty much a utilitarian -- if a corridor is proposed -- and it's not completely gratuitous -- I have to look at it on balance: do the benefits, even those best described as potential, outweigh the negative aspects of the project (raw cost, environmental considerations, etc.).  With I-87, the needle, as I have calculated it, is above center -- while it's a bit rambling in its alignment and doesn't contact any significant metro areas east of the Rocky Mount-Tarboro extended region (its negatives), it does provide that needed link between the two metro areas that it was intended to connect, it achieves a level of developmental efficiency because of the 97 miles of freeway from Raleigh to Williamston (only marginal levels of property acquisition for necessary upgrades) and the fact that much of the remainder of the route can be finalized by upgrading of existing facilities, and even the portion in VA won't be too hard to upgrade.  And it certainly doesn't hurt that it, because of its US 17 routing, can function as an evacuation route in case of hurricanes and/or other regional disasters (not that it can't now, but getting rid of cross traffic would help in this regard).  And it's actually pretty scenic in nice weather (at least the US 17 portion; I've been on it a couple of times).  Not perfect by any means, but on balance not too shabby!  I'm just not one to dismiss the feasible because it isn't perfect.

Now if they could just listen to reason regarding that fucking number....................... 


     

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 15, 2017, 10:24:31 PM
<<< With I-87, the needle, as I have calculated it, is above center -- while it's a bit rambling in its alignment and doesn't contact any significant metro areas east of the Rocky Mount-Tarboro extended region (its negatives), it does provide that needed link between the two metro areas that it was intended to connect >>>

That is the reason why it effectively does -not- connect Raleigh and Norfolk.  It does not supplant the very capable existing Interstate and interregional route which has SYP improvement projects coming in the near future.

You could say that an Interstate connection already exists, Future I-495, I-95 and I-64.  But that would be a bit absurd to think that traffic would utilize a far out of the way routing.  That is the point!

Southerly routes into N.C. are not feasible for Hampton Roads hurricane evacuation, and are not recommended as that would generally take you toward the storm and/or into areas already impacted by storm damage and flooding.

Hurricane evacuation routes are to the west, northwest and north
https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1290

I don't have the "Interstate-itis" that lots of roadgeeks seem to have.  Interstates obviously have their role, and there are some valid proposals for new Interstate routes, but there are also proposals that IMHO are nothing but pork.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 15, 2017, 11:13:05 PM
Not sure if it would be too late to change the current route or not, but IMO the routing of I-87 should have been Raliegh to Rocky Mount via US-64, then overlaps I-95 for about 60 miles north to Emporia, before finally following/upgrading the US-58 corridor east all the way to Bowers Hill. This is the most direct/quickest route between the two metro areas(assuming the US-13 route is not an option) and by far already the most popular route between them as well. Not only would this interstate become far more attractive to Virginia(as a couple of GOP hopeful candidates have expressed interest in turning the corridor into an interstate already), it would make the interstate definitively east/west, hopefully promoting a name change. As for US-64 east of Rocky Mount, NC could turn that into an X-87 if they really wanted to in order to satisfy northeast NC, while also not having to deal with VA wanting nothing to do with it.

I don't have the "Interstate-itis" that lots of roadgeeks seem to have.  Interstates obviously have their role, and there are some valid proposals for new Interstate routes, but there are also proposals that IMHO are nothing but pork.
With all due respect Beltway, did you not do this?
Quote
Part of my highway advocacy efforts will be to submit detailed justifications to VDOT recommending that they pursue designation as Interstate routes on the following.  Good candidates every one.

VA-895 ==> I-895
VA-195 ==> I-195
VA-288 ==> I-695
VA-164 ==> I-164
MLK Fwy segment ==> I-764
VA-267 ==> I-595
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 15, 2017, 11:33:54 PM
My comment about valid proposals for new Interstate routes, I was meaning new location routes, involving new construction.  Those 6 routes are already built to Interstate standards and are already in functional roles as auxiliary Interstate routes.  IMHO anyhow.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 15, 2017, 11:43:03 PM
My comment about valid proposals for new Interstate routes, I was meaning new location routes, involving new construction.  Those 6 routes are already built to Interstate standards and are already in functional roles as auxiliary Interstate routes.  IMHO anyhow.
Ok thanks for the clarification and agreed^
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: michealbond on October 16, 2017, 10:31:01 AM
Not sure if it would be too late to change the current route or not, but IMO the routing of I-87 should have been Raliegh to Rocky Mount via US-64, then overlaps I-95 for about 60 miles north to Emporia, before finally following/upgrading the US-58 corridor east all the way to Bowers Hill. This is the most direct/quickest route between the two metro areas(assuming the US-13 route is not an option) and by far already the most popular route between them as well. Not only would this interstate become far more attractive to Virginia(as a couple of GOP hopeful candidates have expressed interest in turning the corridor into an interstate already), it would make the interstate definitively east/west, hopefully promoting a name change. As for US-64 east of Rocky Mount, NC could turn that into an X-87 if they really wanted to in order to satisfy northeast NC, while also not having to deal with VA wanting nothing to do with it.


Yea...pretty sure it's already too late for that. Besides, once it's done, it will probably as fast , if not faster to get to Norfolk since it will be completely 70 mph and will avoid the speed traps in the Emporia area. I"m sure the officials in the Emporia area want to keep things as they are, so I"m sure they would fight hard to put an interstate through that area pretty hard.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 16, 2017, 10:57:02 AM
Quote from: michealbond
I"m sure the officials in the Emporia area want to keep things as they are, so I"m sure they would fight hard to put an interstate through that area pretty hard.

I've conceptualized a routing that would primarily keep such a route in Greensville County (which IMO is a worse jurisdiction for speeding tickets than Emporia itself is).  VDOT and NCDOT could also theoretically build a new-alignment route along the NC/VA 186/SR 671 corridor that would even further avoid Emporia (and could tie into NCDOT plans for some sort of US 158 bypass/realignment near Roanoke Rapids).

Emporia would also have to tread carefully, because outright opposition to an Interstate-grade US 58 would expose them and their police department for the type of speed trapping that most roadgeeks accuse them of doing (but, despite years stationed in Norfolk and traveling through Emporia, I never actually saw or experienced).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 12:19:04 PM
Besides, once it's done, it will probably as fast , if not faster to get to Norfolk since it will be completely 70 mph

No!  It would be about 25 miles longer, do the math, the new route would take considerably more time, and for large trucks with their low fuel mileage there would be a substantial financial penalty as well.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 16, 2017, 02:26:44 PM
<<< With I-87, the needle, as I have calculated it, is above center -- while it's a bit rambling in its alignment and doesn't contact any significant metro areas east of the Rocky Mount-Tarboro extended region (its negatives), it does provide that needed link between the two metro areas that it was intended to connect >>>

That is the reason why it effectively does -not- connect Raleigh and Norfolk.  It does not supplant the very capable existing Interstate and interregional route which has SYP improvement projects coming in the near future.

You could say that an Interstate connection already exists, Future I-495, I-95 and I-64.  But that would be a bit absurd to think that traffic would utilize a far out of the way routing.  That is the point!

Southerly routes into N.C. are not feasible for Hampton Roads hurricane evacuation, and are not recommended as that would generally take you toward the storm and/or into areas already impacted by storm damage and flooding.

Hurricane evacuation routes are to the west, northwest and north
https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1290

I don't have the "Interstate-itis" that lots of roadgeeks seem to have.  Interstates obviously have their role, and there are some valid proposals for new Interstate routes, but there are also proposals that IMHO are nothing but pork.

I wasn't thinking of hurricane-evacuation routes out of Hampton Roads -- more like evacuation routes from NE NC either into the Roads or SW toward Williamston and the US 64 segment of the I-87 corridor, which presumably would be single-direction during such an emergency.  Would be a bit unrealistic to think that the entire population of VA Beach/Chesapeake/Norfolk could be evacuated anywhere in an emergency; there would need to be "shelter in place" plans in order to deal with that type of event. 

I don't have "interstatitis" like some on the forum; I'm simply reasoning that optimally there would have been in place a system (following the format used for the 1968 batch of additions) to regularly assess the network with an eye toward programming and constructing additions as demographic changes occur across the country.  Unfortunately, the Nixonian effort to shove impetus downward to the state level in the early '70's threw the proverbial monkey wrench into any such prospects.  It also insured that politics -- on every level -- would be the driving force behind any future projects -- producing a broad mix of rationales for new Interstate corridor development.  Barring a change in the legislative agendas at both national and state levels to a postition favoring increased expenditures for interregional facilities, all of us are stuck with the system in situ!  Someone somewhere has to see any given corridor proposal as benefiting their constituency -- or, at least as often, their or their constituency's pocketbooks -- to get any project off the ground.  You may not like the prospect of a corridor not standing solely on its own merits as a connector -- but today's reality is twofold: (a) it has to serve as many parties as possible in order to gain political and economic support, and (b) after 61 years, the Interstate system has become its own rationale; to potential overseas investors in the US economy, Interstate=egress.  It's not a game of horseshoes; "leaners" (in this sense, "adequate" non-Interstate freeways or expressways) don't count!  So the prospect of East Carolina transforming into a major East Coast distribution hub has become the driving force for the I-87 corridor alignment as presently planned.  They -- the backers of this corridor in and out of NC state circles -- are the ones with "interstateitis", and they have the wherewithal to polish off at least the in-state portion of the corridor.  As an observer, I'm just acknowledging the realities encountered with just about any corridor project these days.  Even such a worthy connector as I-22 would have been "stuck in the mud", so to speak, until Toyota insisted upon a close Interstate connection as a prerequisite for constructing their Tupelo, MS assembly plant.  Like it or not; for better or worse; yada yada......it is what it is!     
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 02:47:02 PM
I wasn't thinking of hurricane-evacuation routes out of Hampton Roads -- more like evacuation routes from NE NC either into the Roads or SW toward Williamston and the US 64 segment of the I-87 corridor, which presumably would be single-direction during such an emergency.  Would be a bit unrealistic to think that the entire population of VA Beach/Chesapeake/Norfolk could be evacuated anywhere in an emergency; there would need to be "shelter in place" plans in order to deal with that type of event. 

If you would look at the site I posted you would see that indeed Virginia does have mass evacuation plans for major hurricanes, which ideally would start 2 or 3 days in advance.

No way that emergency service officials would send evacuees -into- the Hampton Roads area, since the typical hurricane track that hits eastern N.C. will hit southeastern Virginia next.  Westward is the plan, and a US-64 freeway already exists from Williamston westward.

So you are left with a one-dimensional justification for I-87 -- the prospect of possible increases in truck traffic for possible warehouse development in eastern N.C.  That is the definition of -pork-.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 16, 2017, 10:28:15 PM
So what's new?  Since 1973, almost all Interstate additions (save the ones financed through the Howard-Cramer Act) have had more than a few ounces of pork; that's part & parcel of the system.  Even direct connections such as I-22 and I-49 have had the pot sweetened by the prospects of localized benefit.  Before no-tax/no-spend ideology stuck its head into the mix, this was the modus operandi of Congress regarding domestic projects in and out of the transportation realm.  And, for the most part, it functioned quite smoothly -- representatives had something to point to when they stood for reelection, rather than stir up resentment and even hatred to draw in marginal constituents.  For better or worse, "pork" worked reasonably well to get things done.   

Carla (GF) was looking over my shoulder while I was writing this reply and, prompted by the reference to pork, reminded me that we haven't been over to the Smoking Pig for several weeks for ribs and "wolf turds" (their term for rib ends wrapped in bacon).  So Sunday "date night" venue is now settled.  We'll just have to agree to disagree about the merits of the I-87 (still hate that number!) corridor -- but thanks for the porcine reference!

P.S. -- after finally looking at the Hampton Roads hurricane plan (which, except for the list of evacuation routes and storm-surge diagrams seems pretty vague), it's pretty obvious that besides US 64 westward from Williamston, NC, anyone trying to move NW out of the Outer Banks and Elizabeth City area would likely just head west on US 158.  The sole reason to go north would be if (a) 158 were jammed and (b) northward traffic would eventually head west on 58 or 460, which have greater capacity than the more direct 158 in any case. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 16, 2017, 10:56:06 PM
Quote from: michealbond
I"m sure the officials in the Emporia area want to keep things as they are, so I"m sure they would fight hard to put an interstate through that area pretty hard.

Emporia would also have to tread carefully, because outright opposition to an Interstate-grade US 58 would expose them and their police department for the type of speed trapping that most roadgeeks accuse them of doing (but, despite years stationed in Norfolk and traveling through Emporia, I never actually saw or experienced).

Lucky you. I just came through the area twice today and US-58 between Emporia and Suffolk was crawling with cops.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 10:56:56 PM
P.S. -- after finally looking at the Hampton Roads hurricane plan (which, except for the list of evacuation routes and storm-surge diagrams seems pretty vague), it's pretty obvious that besides US 64 westward from Williamston, NC, anyone trying to move NW out of the Outer Banks and Elizabeth City area would likely just head west on US 158.  The sole reason to go north would be if (a) 158 were jammed and (b) northward traffic would eventually head west on 58 or 460, which have greater capacity than the more direct 158 in any case. 

Implementation details on what routes to use and when, would vary depending on the storm diameter, category level, track speed, and track itself.  That page is a framework, and the details would be announced thru the media for that particular storm.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 17, 2017, 05:33:03 AM
P.S. -- after finally looking at the Hampton Roads hurricane plan (which, except for the list of evacuation routes and storm-surge diagrams seems pretty vague), it's pretty obvious that besides US 64 westward from Williamston, NC, anyone trying to move NW out of the Outer Banks and Elizabeth City area would likely just head west on US 158.  The sole reason to go north would be if (a) 158 were jammed and (b) northward traffic would eventually head west on 58 or 460, which have greater capacity than the more direct 158 in any case. 

Implementation details on what routes to use and when, would vary depending on the storm diameter, category level, track speed, and track itself.  That page is a framework, and the details would be announced thru the media for that particular storm.

Yeah -- that page showing the hurricane "eye" coming in from due east was, I thought, a bit presumptive; considering the storm tracks as of late, they'd more likely come in from SSE that in any other direction (after royally screwing the Outer Banks!).  Either way, folks in the Roads would be best off scooting west to higher ground -- since it looks like everything east of the Intracoastal, along with downtown Norfolk, would be inundated with a Class 3 or higher.   You guys have got your hurricanes; we've got our fires -- seems like these days, every region bites it one way or the other weather-wise (gee, I wonder why?). 

On the porcine note -- a while back I was coming through Richmond from the Outer Banks, and stopped at a BBQ place off I-295 at the US 360 interchange at Mechanicsville; it was a block or two east in a strip mall -- and it was damn good!  Can't remember the name of the place (and my receipt has long been flushed) -- if anyone can supply me with the restaurant's name, it would be greatly appreciated (for future reference when I'm in the area). 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on October 17, 2017, 10:17:52 AM
P.S. -- after finally looking at the Hampton Roads hurricane plan (which, except for the list of evacuation routes and storm-surge diagrams seems pretty vague), it's pretty obvious that besides US 64 westward from Williamston, NC, anyone trying to move NW out of the Outer Banks and Elizabeth City area would likely just head west on US 158.  The sole reason to go north would be if (a) 158 were jammed and (b) northward traffic would eventually head west on 58 or 460, which have greater capacity than the more direct 158 in any case. 

Implementation details on what routes to use and when, would vary depending on the storm diameter, category level, track speed, and track itself.  That page is a framework, and the details would be announced thru the media for that particular storm.

Yeah -- that page showing the hurricane "eye" coming in from due east was, I thought, a bit presumptive; considering the storm tracks as of late, they'd more likely come in from SSE that in any other direction (after royally screwing the Outer Banks!).  Either way, folks in the Roads would be best off scooting west to higher ground -- since it looks like everything east of the Intracoastal, along with downtown Norfolk, would be inundated with a Class 3 or higher.   You guys have got your hurricanes; we've got our fires -- seems like these days, every region bites it one way or the other weather-wise (gee, I wonder why?). 

On the porcine note -- a while back I was coming through Richmond from the Outer Banks, and stopped at a BBQ place off I-295 at the US 360 interchange at Mechanicsville; it was a block or two east in a strip mall -- and it was damn good!  Can't remember the name of the place (and my receipt has long been flushed) -- if anyone can supply me with the restaurant's name, it would be greatly appreciated (for future reference when I'm in the area).

I can't give you the name, but you can go to the intersection on Google maps and retrace your route, that should get you the name.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 17, 2017, 11:08:42 AM
Implementation details on what routes to use and when, would vary depending on the storm diameter, category level, track speed, and track itself.  That page is a framework, and the details would be announced thru the media for that particular storm.
Yeah -- that page showing the hurricane "eye" coming in from due east was, I thought, a bit presumptive; considering the storm tracks as of late, they'd more likely come in from SSE that in any other direction (after royally screwing the Outer Banks!).  Either way, folks in the Roads would be best off scooting west to higher ground -- since it looks like everything east of the Intracoastal, along with downtown Norfolk, would be inundated with a Class 3 or higher.   You guys have got your hurricanes; we've got our fires -- seems like these days, every region bites it one way or the other weather-wise (gee, I wonder why?). 

Sure that graphic was generic, there is great variability in hurricane tracks, and even 4 or 5 days out the NOAA National Hurricane Center official estimates have up to 200 miles of error.  And it's not really an error, it is the difficulty of predicting.

Try Googling "strange hurricane tracks", look at the images.  Possible hurricane tracks into the SE Virginia could range on almost 180 degrees of the compass.  Most common would range somewhere between due north and due west.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: 1 on October 17, 2017, 11:24:10 AM
Sure that graphic was generic, there is great variability in hurricane tracks, and even 4 or 5 days out the NOAA National Hurricane Center official estimates have up to 200 miles of error.  And it's not really an error, it is the difficulty of predicting.

It is error. Error is uncertainty. You may be referring to mistakes, which do indicate that someone did something wrong.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 17, 2017, 11:34:29 AM
Sure that graphic was generic, there is great variability in hurricane tracks, and even 4 or 5 days out the NOAA National Hurricane Center official estimates have up to 200 miles of error.  And it's not really an error, it is the difficulty of predicting.
It is error. Error is uncertainty. You may be referring to mistakes, which do indicate that someone did something wrong.

Well, the dictionary definition of 'error' is --
- a mistake.
synonyms: mistake, inaccuracy, miscalculation, blunder, oversight; fallacy, misconception, delusion; misprint, erratum; informals lip-up, boo-boo, goof 
- the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgment.


In any event, the word 'uncertainty' best matches what I was trying to say.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: kphoger on October 17, 2017, 11:53:26 AM
Is this the graphic you're referring to?
I agree, it's an error.


(http://orig01.deviantart.net/91a1/f/2013/109/1/a/everything_i_87_touches_is_alanland__by_sanctimoniously-d62aunj.png)

Everything I-87 touches is Alanland.


/me ducks and runs.

ps — Back-engineering that quote string took a while.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: index on October 21, 2017, 02:25:13 PM
I-87 may very well help a lot of the struggling communities in its path when it comes through.

http://wnct.com/2017/01/03/martin-co-leaders-looks-forward-to-i-87-related-job-growth/
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 21, 2017, 04:41:28 PM
The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 21, 2017, 07:34:57 PM
The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.

Agreed, but it shouldn't be too difficult to see why so much faith in I-shields persists, especially in economically depressed areas. For example, I-795 has helped Goldsboro some since the interstate came into existence 10 years ago, though it took a few years thanks to the Great Recession.  Even the small town of Mount Olive has had development pop up on NC-55 near the US-117 interchange since it's been known for years that I-795 will eventually go through Mount Olive on it's way to I-40. One of the fast food chains (I forget which) had intended on opening next to I-795 in Fremont on NC-222 a few years ago until the NIMBY property owners killed it. People can laugh at fast food joints but for a small town, money is money.

The new US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro has led to development popping up towards it's exits, particularly on Wayne Memorial Drive and NC-581. A convention center is currently being built next to Wayne Community College with a large hotel being planned to be built next to the convention center.

As far as I-87 goes, I seriously doubt it will turn anything around. If there's any development at all, it will most likely be between Rocky Mount and Raleigh and between Elizabeth City and Virginia. It just doesn't have the level of traffic that the I-42 and I-795 corridors have.

While interstates are not an automatic guarantee of economic development, there are cases where it has helped to give some areas a boost, whether big or small.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 21, 2017, 09:14:14 PM
The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.

Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.

The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%.  National population has increased by 112% since 1950.

West Virginia
        2015        2010          2000          1990         1950
1,844,128  1,852,996  1,808,344  1,793,477  2,005,552

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: DJStephens on October 21, 2017, 09:44:01 PM
The bottom three states in terms of economic opportunity are likely New Mexico (48) Mississippi (49) and West Virginia (50) in that order   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 21, 2017, 11:59:20 PM
The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.

Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.

The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%.  National population has increased by 112% since 1950.

West Virginia
        2015        2010          2000          1990         1950
1,844,128  1,852,996  1,808,344  1,793,477  2,005,552
The bottom three states in terms of economic opportunity are likely New Mexico (48) Mississippi (49) and West Virginia (50) in that order   

In 1950, the lion's share of WV population were engaged in two economic activities:  resource (principally coal) extraction, and metal production (generally steel up in the northern panhandle).  At that time, diversifying into other fields didn't seem necessary.  The state's topography and lack of significant agricultural production has always been a factor; there is little breadth of economic activity; and when the steel industry began its decline in the late '50's those regions dominated by that industry suffered economic and eventually population losses correspondingly (just look at the last 7 census figures for Pittsburgh and Birmingham for confirmation of this trend).  When coal followed suit about 30 years later, it simply exacerbated the previous dynamics.  If one were to run regression analyses on determinants of WV's dire financial straits, road development would hardly make a blip in regards to its contribution -- or lack thereof -- to those circumstances.  The only "robust" data would inevitably track the loss of heavy industry and mining.  You could build 200 miles of new Interstate and/or full-blown ARC facility within the state -- or none at all -- and except for a marginal spike of cash flow around any construction efforts neither extreme would come close to affecting, much less reversing, the nearly 70-year decline.  Citing WV as an example of how new Interstate routes (the last development of which occurred 29 years ago with then-US 48, later I-68) -- or even ARC corridor development -- fail to enhance state economic fortune is both misleading and gratuitous; in that regard, the state is plainly an outlier.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 22, 2017, 07:29:39 AM
^ I wasn't thinking of West Virginia.  I was thinking of areas that already had an Interstate (and major rail) junction and are still dying or decreasing.  Meridian, MS is a classic example of this and the first one I was thinking of.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 22, 2017, 08:18:57 AM
In 1950, the lion's share of WV population were engaged in two economic activities:  resource (principally coal) extraction, and metal production (generally steel up in the northern panhandle).  At that time, diversifying into other fields didn't seem necessary.  The state's topography and lack of significant agricultural production has always been a factor; there is little breadth of economic activity; and when the steel industry began its decline in the late '50's those regions dominated by that industry suffered economic and eventually population losses correspondingly (just look at the last 7 census figures for Pittsburgh and Birmingham for confirmation of this trend).  When coal followed suit about 30 years later, it simply exacerbated the previous dynamics.  If one were to run regression analyses on determinants of WV's dire financial straits, road development would hardly make a blip in regards to its contribution -- or lack thereof -- to those circumstances.  The only "robust" data would inevitably track the loss of heavy industry and mining.  You could build 200 miles of new Interstate and/or full-blown ARC facility within the state -- or none at all -- and except for a marginal spike of cash flow around any construction efforts neither extreme would come close to affecting, much less reversing, the nearly 70-year decline.  Citing WV as an example of how new Interstate routes (the last development of which occurred 29 years ago with then-US 48, later I-68) -- or even ARC corridor development -- fail to enhance state economic fortune is both misleading and gratuitous; in that regard, the state is plainly an outlier.   

Agriculture is a lot more than just growing crops, it includes livestock products and forestal harvesting.  Do some research and find that West Virginia did and does produce considerable agricultural output.  Around 23,000 farms averaging 157 acres each.  The third most-forested state with 12 million acres of forestland.

West Virginia could reinvent itself just like Pittsburgh did after the huge decline in steel and industrial output.  A number of small metros that could experience considerable growth and development.

I didn't say "fail to enhance", I just said that there is no guarantee.  Sticking a highway in a questionable area with at best one-dimensional justifications (hello!) points to a boondoggle.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 22, 2017, 08:19:52 AM
^ I wasn't thinking of West Virginia.  I was thinking of areas that already had an Interstate (and major rail) junction and are still dying or decreasing.  Meridian, MS is a classic example of this and the first one I was thinking of.

Sounds like instances in West Virginia.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 23, 2017, 12:56:54 PM
One must remember that political decisions such as the driving force behind the commissioning of the south I-87 are based on perception rather than any extensive studies regarding the efficacy of the specific route.  The backers and their political allies are convinced that the presence of the route will at least contribute to economic gains in the area it traverses -- and it's likely, if you asked them directly, that they're convinced that they are pursuing a noble goal regarding the connection between Raleigh and Hampton Roads.  Whether that's self-deception or not is at the present time a moot point; these folks have mobilized all the forces that they needed to mobilize (as in getting AASHTO approval for the designation, "piggybacked" on an existing high-priority corridor) to advance the project. 

For better or worse, this is part and parcel of the political process as applied to potential Interstate additions.  There are no effective gatekeepers tasked with vetting these routes prior to deployment activities; the process remains within the political realm until construction actually occurs.  When there is local/state consensus that a new Interstate corridor is desired, it tends to be advanced to the degree that funding allows; when there isn't broad agreement, the prospect generally doesn't get off the ground.  In this instance, NC's a favorable environment, while, categorically VA is not.  The NC transportation establishment thinks that it's accomplishing a worthy goal -- and under today's prevalent  "system", that by default tends to carry the day.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 23, 2017, 08:44:21 PM
What you say in general is reasonable.  But every highway proposal is different and needs to be judged on its own merits.  Any "perception" needs to be evaluated to see if it is accurate or if it is inaccurate or if it is not grounded in reality.

This highway is in a questionable area regarding any significant economic growth, and even that is a one-dimensional justification.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 24, 2017, 03:10:03 AM
What you say in general is reasonable.  But every highway proposal is different and needs to be judged on its own merits.  Any "perception" needs to be evaluated to see if it is accurate or if it is inaccurate or if it is not grounded in reality.

This highway is in a questionable area regarding any significant economic growth, and even that is a one-dimensional justification.

When it comes to highways & politics, a priori concepts such as demonstration of actual need are simply bypassed or just not afforded much in the way of consideration.  It's a variation on March and Kingdon's theory of the "garbage can" policy process:  a particular action is framed as a "solution" -- in this case, connecting Hampton Roads with Raleigh and the "Research Triangle".  Then the search for a salable set of rationales begins:  Panamax, the existence of upgradeable facilities, economic viability of the traversed area, possible recreational usage to & from the Outer Banks, and so on and so forth.  Essentially it's predicated upon "piling on" of reasons to advance the project -- enough to sway legislators (a process that has been completed regarding "selling" of the corridor concept in general to the actors with decision-making authority; but will continue until funding can be extracted and deployed.  In short, this process began back in 1991 with the corridor's inclusion in the ISTEA corridor compendium, likely by either the same actors who envisioned I-87 a quarter-century later or their lineal predecessors.  It sat relatively dormant (although it's intriguing that the portion of US 64 completed prior to ISTEA (west of Tarboro) was not built to Interstate standards, but the portion east from there to Williamston was! -- and that construction happened after ISTEA.  The instigators have been active for quite some time, likely in and out of NCDOT.  Sometimes persistence -- and a damn good sales pitch -- can overcome naysayers -- and it's likely that precious few of those were given the time of day by the NC parties involved, who don't see the process as "zero-sum"; they also don't see a "no-build" or "status quo" option as feasible -- like the proverbial shark, they seem to feel as if they must always be moving forward and have a freeway/Interstate project "in the hopper", so to speak -- as if letting up would invite unwanted criticism and possible opposition.  But it's the process that tends to prevail these days.                                                                                           
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 24, 2017, 04:43:03 AM
What you say in general is reasonable.  But every highway proposal is different and needs to be judged on its own merits.  Any "perception" needs to be evaluated to see if it is accurate or if it is inaccurate or if it is not grounded in reality.

This highway is in a questionable area regarding any significant economic growth, and even that is a one-dimensional justification.

In short, this process began back in 1991 with the corridor's inclusion in the ISTEA corridor compendium, likely by either the same actors who envisioned I-87 a quarter-century later or their lineal predecessors.  It sat relatively dormant (although it's intriguing that the portion of US 64 completed prior to ISTEA (west of Tarboro) was not built to Interstate standards, but the portion east from there to Williamston was! -- and that construction happened after ISTEA.  The instigators have been active for quite some time, likely in and out of NCDOT.

The Raleigh-Norfolk interstate idea goes as far back as at least 1992. According to this article from October 22, 1992, the HRTPO was opposed to using US-17 at the time and they and NCDOT favored using US-13 to cross into Virginia and then use US-58 to connect with I-64. Only VDOT favored using US-17.

http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-10-22/news/9210220164_1_new-route-new-road-study (http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-10-22/news/9210220164_1_new-route-new-road-study)

Compare that to today, where NCDOT favors using US-17 and VDOT is leaning toward VA-168.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 06:54:51 AM
ISTEA High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System, don't have to be designed to Interstate standards, or designed to freeway standards, at least most of them aren't.  They don't even have to be four lanes, but most of them are.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 12:07:05 PM
The US-13 route is no less circuitous than is the US-17 route.  Another problem would be how to get thru Suffolk, as the southeast quadrant of the Suffolk Bypass was never built because of the high impacts to the Dismal Swamp.  Routing on the existing bypass would add even more circuitous extra mileage.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2017, 12:14:44 PM
^ Existing bypass vs. cancelled eastern bypass is about a 4.5 mile difference.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NE2 on October 24, 2017, 12:37:15 PM
The US-13 route is no less circuitous than is the US-17 route.
Not if you use NC 11. Then you actually get something not longer than I-95 to US 58!
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: michealbond on October 24, 2017, 02:17:18 PM
I-87 may very well help a lot of the struggling communities in its path when it comes through.

http://wnct.com/2017/01/03/martin-co-leaders-looks-forward-to-i-87-related-job-growth/

Quote
“Having a blue shield in our county opens up a lot of projects that we didn’t have access to in the past,” said Semple, “As we respond to active projects for RFIs and those types of requests, it’s always the first thing, the first question they ask. Do you have interstate access? And now we can say that.”

That's the most telling quote, to me. As petty or small of a reason as it sounds, the reality is that an interstate is what a lot of major employers are looking for when wanting to locate to an area.

Eastern NC is poor as it is, but Northeastern NC is even poorer and is in desperate need of anything that could potentially help create jobs in the area. An interstate will open some doors there that will not be available without it.

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2017, 02:33:11 PM
That's a lot of public expenditure for what would be a questionable chance (and likely retail/service-related) of development.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Rothman on October 24, 2017, 02:41:11 PM
Have to agree with Froggie.  Although the "build it and they will come" mantra is well-established, it is just a mantra.  As we love to point out up here in NY, if interstates meant money, Binghamton should be Monaco instead of the slag heap it is.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 24, 2017, 04:04:44 PM
ISTEA High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System, don't have to be designed to Interstate standards, or designed to freeway standards, at least most of them aren't.  They don't even have to be four lanes, but most of them are.

Only those HPC's that are specifically designated as Interstates, either at the time of the initial corridor designation or within subsequent legislation, are slated for eventual development as an Interstate.  Overall, with the 90-some HPC's, many of the improvements have been "spot" projects along the corridor's length to improve efficiency or safety; some of that has involved expansion to a multi-lane facility.  The "piggybacking" of Interstates on HPC's began with the NHS act of 1995, when the I-69 cluster as well as the initial iteration of I-73/74 was designated over corridors themselves adopted four years earlier.  The practice of simultaneously designating a new HPC along with a corresponding new Interstate began in 2004 when HPC 45 was designated over part of existing HPC 10 in MS & AL -- and the I-22 route number was included in the bill; to date both I-14 and I-42 were instigated in this very manner.  In contrast, I-11 was added to the definition of a specific section of HPC 26 and later the entirety of HPC 68 (the former got it from Phoenix to Vegas, the latter from Vegas to I-80).  I-41 was an unusual case -- the language of its relevant corridor, HPC 57, was declared a "future Interstate" within its 2005 text -- but minus a number; the number was added in 2014 through the "normal" AASHTO SCOURN action.  The southern I-87's designation and numbering process was a bit unusual as it was a two-step process; first, HPC 13's original authorizing language was amended to include "future Interstate" status; and the number was subsequently (ill-)conceived at a 2016 SCOURN meeting after several NCDOT missteps.     
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 06:57:57 PM
The US-13 route is no less circuitous than is the US-17 route.
Not if you use NC 11. Then you actually get something not longer than I-95 to US 58!

Not a good route, IMHO.  Would serve no towns, nothing but some villages.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 07:00:02 PM
That's a lot of public expenditure for what would be a questionable chance (and likely retail/service-related) of development.

As I have said, a one-dimensional warrant of questionable outcome.

And there is a very capable 4-lane high speed route already there.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 07:06:33 PM
The HPCs are very flexible.  We have "Interstate 73" as in a supposedly approved Interstate corridor, yet West Virginia is planning their segment as an at-grade expressway, and Ohio and Michigan have done no serious preliminary planning yet (let alone proceed past that stage).  Virginia has a completed location/EIS NEPA process on the 70 miles of I-73 between N.C. and I-81, but the $4 billion cost has held up any construction so far, and the existing US-220 and I-581 is a very capable multilane high speed highway with 4 or more lanes and 30% of the length is freeway standard.  I would like to see I-73 built at least between SC I-95 and VA I-81.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 24, 2017, 09:45:28 PM
The HPCs are very flexible.  We have "Interstate 73" as in a supposedly approved Interstate corridor, yet West Virginia is planning their segment as an at-grade expressway, and Ohio and Michigan have done no serious preliminary planning yet (let alone proceed past that stage).  Virginia has a completed location/EIS NEPA process on the 70 miles of I-73 between N.C. and I-81, but the $4 billion cost has held up any construction so far, and the existing US-220 and I-581 is a very capable multilane high speed highway with 4 or more lanes and 30% of the length is freeway standard.  I would like to see I-73 built at least between SC I-95 and VA I-81.

And barring any NC-like impetus from any states to the north, I-81 is liable to be the I-73 terminus for most of our lifetimes, if it advances past Martinsville.  It would be most enlightening to be a fly on the wall inside VDOT when and if either I-73 or I-87 come up for discussion! 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on October 24, 2017, 11:43:54 PM
The HPCs are very flexible.  We have "Interstate 73" as in a supposedly approved Interstate corridor, yet West Virginia is planning their segment as an at-grade expressway, and Ohio and Michigan have done no serious preliminary planning yet (let alone proceed past that stage).  Virginia has a completed location/EIS NEPA process on the 70 miles of I-73 between N.C. and I-81, but the $4 billion cost has held up any construction so far, and the existing US-220 and I-581 is a very capable multilane high speed highway with 4 or more lanes and 30% of the length is freeway standard.  I would like to see I-73 built at least between SC I-95 and VA I-81.

And barring any NC-like impetus from any states to the north, I-81 is liable to be the I-73 terminus for most of our lifetimes, if it advances past Martinsville.  It would be most enlightening to be a fly on the wall inside VDOT when and if either I-73 or I-87 come up for discussion!


Yeah, I agree with you. I-81 is more likely to be I-73's terminus for a long time. Martinsville will get it first, however.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on October 26, 2017, 09:12:26 AM
It’s signed!
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 26, 2017, 10:08:43 AM
We know (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.msg2213632;topicseen#msg2213632)...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 26, 2017, 05:15:23 PM
It’s signed!
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html

I see one of my pictures without the proper credit.   :angry:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Takumi on October 26, 2017, 05:19:32 PM
/me goes to get some popcorn
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 29, 2017, 04:56:47 AM
Pasquotank County is strongly opposed to the idea of re-routing I-87 along the proposed connector route to Currituck and VA-168. They want I-87 to stay on US-17. VDOT has also just begun their study of I-87.

http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/27/Where-should-I-87-go-Locals-No-reroute-through-Currituck.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/10/27/Where-should-I-87-go-Locals-No-reroute-through-Currituck.html)

Quote
Pasquotank County officials say they’re “dead set” against any effort to reroute the proposed Raleigh-to-Norfolk I-87 interstate through Currituck County and connect with Virginia Highway 168.

Commissioner Jeff Dixon said at last week’s Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Economic Development Commission meeting that county commissioners want the proposed interstate to follow the current route set out in federal law creating it: U.S. Highway 64 from Raleigh to Williamston and U.S. 17 from Williamston to Chesapeake, Virginia.

Dixon was responding to a recent report that Currituck officials had contacted the N.C. Department of Transportation about the possibility of making a connector route that’s been proposed from U.S. 17 to Currituck an actual alternate for I-87.

Pasquotank officials say while they support the proposed U.S. 17-Currituck connector road, they do not support making it the route for I-87 into Virginia.

EDC Director Wayne Harris last week told the Elizabeth City Downtown, Inc. board that having I-87 turn right in northern Camden County and head toward Currituck not only would be contrary to federal legislation but “would be tremendously expensive.” He noted that the highway project, already projected to cost $1 billion in North Carolina alone, could see its price tag go up by tens of millions of more dollars. Shifting the interstate through Currituck could also add more time to completing the project, he said.

Harris also said shifting I-87 into Currituck would reduce the effectiveness of the interstate as an evacuation route for federal military and civilian personnel should a hurricane make landfall in the region.

Dixon said he expects Pasquotank commissioners, the EDC board and Elizabeth City City Council would all adopt resolutions asking DOT to stick to the current plan to have I-87 follow U.S. 64 and U.S. 17 into Virginia.

Shane York, a feasibility studies engineer with NCDOT, brought up Currituck’s interest in having the U.S. 17-Currituck connector studied as an alternate route for I-87 during a recent meeting with Camden commissioners. The current plan for I-87 has the interstate following U.S. 17 through Camden into Chesapeake.

York said Currituck officials had asked NCDOT to study the cost of rerouting I-87 through Currituck.
He also advised Camden officials that Virginia’s transportation secretary had expressed interest in the idea.

NCDOT documents show a proposed alternate route for I-87 starting just north of the Dismal Swamp State Park and extending just below the state line into northern Currituck, which is the location of the county’s proposed Moyock Mega-Site commercial and residential project. The alternate route would pass northwest of Moyock and bend just slightly northeast into Virginia, ending at a new interchange with Virginia Highway 168, which feeds into Interstates 64 and 464.

Currituck County Manager Dan Scanlon acknowledged this week that the county asked NCDOT to study the feasibility of aligning I-87 with the proposed U.S. 17-Currituck connector.

He said it’s Currituck’s belief that the proposed connector road would be built closer to interstate standards than U.S. 17 would be. Also, Currituck believes the connector would be the better route for I-87 if North Carolina’s and Virginia’s transportation priorities are unaligned, he said.

In an email, Scanlon said county officials have discussed the I-87 project with a number of agencies and officials in Virginia and also reviewed documents outlining future transportation plans in the Hampton Roads area. Currituck’s concern, he said, is that the I-87 project seems more of a priority in northeastern North Carolina than it is in Virginia.

“We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization’s 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions,” Scanlon said.

The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization is the group that includes municipalities, state and federal agencies responsible for the planning of bridges, highways and roads in the Hampton Roads region.

Scanlon said Currituck’s inquiry included looking at a city of Chesapeake study called “Forward Chesapeake” that outlines the city’s plans through 2026 as well as Chesapeake’s long-term master transportation plan. According to Scanlon, neither makes a priority of bringing U.S. 17 through Virginia up to interstate standards.

Scanlon said Currituck’s concern is that if the proposed I-87 isn’t viewed with the same priority north of the North Carolina-Virginia border as it is south of it, “Where does that leave North Carolina?”

Virginia Department of Transportation Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick recently said Chesapeake officials have asked his agency to work with VDOT experts on opportunities for I-87 in Virginia.

Kilpatrick said VDOT is just beginning its study of I-87 and hasn’t discussed possible alignments of the proposed roadway.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Takumi on October 29, 2017, 06:41:06 AM
Of course they’re against a routing that wouldn’t bring as much money to them.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 08:45:08 AM
Quote
“We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization’s 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions,” Scanlon said.

IOW, that speaks for itself.  Little if any support.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 29, 2017, 06:22:52 PM
Quote
“We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization’s 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions,” Scanlon said.

IOW, that speaks for itself.  Little if any support.

If the cited "2040" plan was drafted and published prior to the 2016 re-designation of HPC 13, including VA's segment of US 17, as the I-87 corridor, it obviously wouldn't reflect that particular change of circumstances.  As the previous cite states, Chesapeake has asked VDOT for cooperation regarding corridor routing.  It will take time for VDOT to respond, since prior to last year they likely wouldn't have had any contingency plans in place for such a concept.  We'll just have to wait and see what transpires -- and what is proffered (and any pending timetable for such -- which would likely be pushed out to about, well, 2040!). 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on October 30, 2017, 12:40:39 PM
Quote
“We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization’s 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions,” Scanlon said.

IOW, that speaks for itself.  Little if any support.

If the cited "2040" plan was drafted and published prior to the 2016 re-designation of HPC 13, including VA's segment of US 17, as the I-87 corridor, it obviously wouldn't reflect that particular change of circumstances.

The plan was adopted on July 21, 2016, months after Congress passed the FAST Act.

http://www.hrtpo.org/page/2040-long-range-transportation-plan/ (http://www.hrtpo.org/page/2040-long-range-transportation-plan/)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on October 30, 2017, 09:26:30 PM
Quote
“We have learned that although there is some support for the (I-87) project in Virginia, it has not been included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization’s 2040 long-range transportation plan and is not currently considered a priority for any of the HRTPO jurisdictions,” Scanlon said.

IOW, that speaks for itself.  Little if any support.

If the cited "2040" plan was drafted and published prior to the 2016 re-designation of HPC 13, including VA's segment of US 17, as the I-87 corridor, it obviously wouldn't reflect that particular change of circumstances.

The plan was adopted on July 21, 2016, months after Congress passed the FAST Act.

http://www.hrtpo.org/page/2040-long-range-transportation-plan/ (http://www.hrtpo.org/page/2040-long-range-transportation-plan/)

Well then -- that indicates that if the I-87 corridor is indeed completed in NC and empties out onto US 17 at the state line -- at least before 2040 -- the ball would be in the court of VA and the city of Chesapeake.  Whether they take any action, or just simply choose to sit out the game, remains to be seen.  The chances are, though, that it'll be sometime after 2030 before the NC segment is finished -- so VA folks will have a few years to assess whether there's enough additional traffic on US 17 to consider upgrading the corridor (unless the existing plan is internally amended).  I think it's fair to say that this is going to be a point of contention for the next few decades. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on October 31, 2017, 08:33:03 AM
Given my experience with southeastern Virginia, I doubt VDOT and Chesapeake (really the latter as they have operational/maintenance control over US 17) will do anything unless and until commuter traffic from southern Chesapeake and any bedroom communities between there and E-City becomes enough to warrant improvements.  And given precedent with the Steel Bridge, they would likely toll any such improvements.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on November 02, 2017, 07:46:02 PM
I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.

http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/ (http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/)

There's a report going around that CSX will not build the Carolina Connector terminal. CSX hasn't confirmed or denied it.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/11/02/CSX-hub-plans-in-question-online-report-says.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/11/02/CSX-hub-plans-in-question-online-report-says.html)

Quote
A magazine that covers the rail industry has reported that CSX isn’t moving forward with plans to build the Carolina Connector in Rocky Mount.

CSX officials on Thursday would neither confirm nor deny the report.

A story on the Trains News Wire website said it has learned that the Jacksonville, Fla.-based railroad company will not build the more than $270 million intermodal terminal in Rocky Mount. The report also said CSX aims to end container sorting at its busy intermodal terminal in North Baltimore, Ohio, by Nov. 11.

But CSX spokesman Christopher Smith wouldn’t confirm or deny the report in a statement to the Telegram. Smith said CSX has been focused since March on adopting a new operating plan.

“As part of our new plan, we have been conducting a comprehensive and strategic review of the company’s intermodal business, including the use and development of existing and planned infrastructure projects,” Smith said. “Intermodal will remain an important part of CSX’s business and any changes to existing service or to proposed plans will be discussed directly with CSX customers and relevant stakeholders. CSX appreciates the partnership we have developed with the state of North Carolina and we look forward to continuing the dialogue with the state about CCX and our new operating plan.”

Construction of the intermodal terminal was set to begin in early 2018, with operations commencing by the end of 2019, officials said.

Construction of the facility would create up to 300 short-term jobs. Once operational, CCX would provide more than 300 direct, long-term jobs with average terminal salaries of more than $60,000 per year.

Over time, CSX expected the intermodal to produce more than 1,500 jobs statewide, while attracting new businesses to the area and pump an estimated $125 million into the state economy.

Here's the magazine article that was referenced:

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/11/02-csx-intermodal-cuts (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/11/02-csx-intermodal-cuts)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on November 02, 2017, 08:54:40 PM
There's a report going around that CSX will not build the Carolina Connector terminal. CSX hasn't confirmed or denied it.

If it's true, then that'll be something of a body-blow to the region.  Since CSX brought former CN chief Hunter Harrison out of retirement and made him CEO, they seem to be in retrenchment mode.  Their principal source of income, export coal, has seen a precipitous drop in overall transactions (loadings/unloadings) over the past 7-10 years; Harrison was brought in to address the issue; most analysts expected a shift of priorities to container cargo to make up for the lost coal business.  CSX, overall, has the best port presence of the southeast rail conglomerates and is in a better overall position to take advantage of any Panamax-related uptick in business; the Rocky Mount "hub" was intended to enhance that prospect by providing a place to assemble "platooned" unit container trains heading for the Northeast and Midwest.  But Harrison, who has developed a reputation as a shareholder "darling", seems to be employing a strategy of waiting out the downturn and postponing or even eliminating capital outlay -- and development of a major facility like the Rocky Mount hub would certainly be in jeopardy under that game plan.  But except for functioning as an psychological "downer" -- and possibly affecting the rate of industrial development in NE NC simply by an "osmosis" of negativity regarding other regional enterprises, it's highly unlikely that there would be any direct correlation to potential I-87 traffic, as it's unlikely that CSX itself would need to avail themselves of any road corridor between Norfolk and Rocky Mount, since they already have rail lines or trackage rights between the two points and wouldn't require over-the-road transport; any offloads right at the port going onto trucks would be LTL/"less-than-trainload" shipments intended for locations not conveniently served by the main rail corridors.  In other words, there's little chance CSX or the other regional rail conglomerate, NS, would require I-87 -- or any other road corridor for that matter -- directly out of Hampton Roads in order to reload cargo onto rails elsewhere.  If the Rocky Mount hub is indeed cancelled, there might be something of a "ripple effect" causing rethinking by businesses that might have considered locating in the region because of the proximity of both major rail facilities and Interstate corridors.  We'll all just have to see how this turn of events plays out.

On another note, it would be ironic if a rail-related downturn such as this would in any way negatively affect the development of an Interstate corridor, since it is widely perceived that the deployment of the Interstate system both negatively affected the state of rail freight transport (effectively truncating individual carloadings) while providing a means to enhance the alternative truck-based transport mode.  Here, a negative occurrence in one mode (CSX rail) might just result in a corresponding devaluation and subsequent delay or truncation of the other mode (the I-87 corridor, or at least the timetable for its development).       
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: jwolfer on November 05, 2017, 01:12:24 PM
The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.

Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.

The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%.  National population has increased by 112% since 1950.

West Virginia
        2015        2010          2000          1990         1950
1,844,128  1,852,996  1,808,344  1,793,477  2,005,552
Easier to get out of the area.

Z981

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on November 11, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
I got the new 2018 RN map and it still shows I-495 as the route near Raleigh.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on November 11, 2017, 06:22:13 PM
The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.
The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%.  National population has increased by 112% since 1950.
West Virginia
        2015        2010          2000          1990         1950
1,844,128  1,852,996  1,808,344  1,793,477  2,005,552

Easier to get out of the area.

There is an anecdote, about how someone hears a joke told in church on Sunday, and then they laugh about it on Monday.    :-/

I just now picked up on what jwolfer was saying ... that all those modern highways make it easier to move out of West Virginia.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: jwolfer on November 11, 2017, 07:30:05 PM
The reality is somewhat different.  Far too many people see an Interstate shield as a panacea for economic growth.  Takes far more than that.  Takes resources and skilled workers too, amongst other things.  An Interstate alone isn't going to do it.
Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.
The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%.  National population has increased by 112% since 1950.
West Virginia
        2015        2010          2000          1990         1950
1,844,128  1,852,996  1,808,344  1,793,477  2,005,552

Easier to get out of the area.

There is an anecdote, about how someone hears a joke told in church on Sunday, and then they laugh about it on Monday.    :-/

I just now picked up on what jwolfer was saying ... that all those modern highways make it easier to move out of West Virginia.
However the eastern panhandle of WV is growing as Washington DC exurbs

Z981

Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on November 11, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
Look at West Virginia, possibly the most transformed state highway system in the country, with its excellent network Interstate highways and ADHS highways.
The state has lost population since 1950, when the average U.S. state growth per decade was about 12%.  National population has increased by 112% since 1950.
West Virginia
        2015        2010          2000          1990         1950
1,844,128  1,852,996  1,808,344  1,793,477  2,005,552
Easier to get out of the area.
There is an anecdote, about how someone hears a joke told in church on Sunday, and then they laugh about it on Monday.    :-/
I just now picked up on what jwolfer was saying ... that all those modern highways make it easier to move out of West Virginia.

However the eastern panhandle of WV is growing as Washington DC exurbs

Indeed it is, but not nearly enough to get the state population even near what it was in 1950.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2017, 03:07:01 PM
Anyone want to bet we'll see Interstate 87 (and 587 and 42) on the 2019 editions of road atlases?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on November 13, 2017, 05:53:06 PM
Anyone want to bet we'll see Interstate 87 (and 587 and 42) on the 2019 editions of road atlases?

Rand McNally generally doesn't slap shields on Interstate routes that aren't signed; chances are we will see I-87 on at least the Raleigh-Durham insert and maybe on the main state map.  If 587 and 42 aren't signed, they probably won't show up.  Not like the old American Maps (pre-Kappa shit) of the early '00's, which had "Future" Interstate shields on such things as the south I-49, the then-finished freeway stretches of I-22, etc.; some of the AAA maps followed suit, but not to the extent of American Map.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on December 23, 2017, 11:08:59 AM
As far as I-87 goes, I seriously doubt it will turn anything around. If there's any development at all, it will most likely be between Rocky Mount and Raleigh and between Elizabeth City and Virginia.

While interstates are not an automatic guarantee of economic development, there are cases where it has helped to give some areas a boost, whether big or small.

Welp, I was wrong.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/12/20/Tire-plants-to-create-800-jobs.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/12/20/Tire-plants-to-create-800-jobs.html)

Here's the official website for the Kingsboro megasite, which includes an aerial view of it's location. Triangle Tire Co. will be it's first major tenant.

https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite (https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on December 23, 2017, 02:02:15 PM
As far as I-87 goes, I seriously doubt it will turn anything around. If there's any development at all, it will most likely be between Rocky Mount and Raleigh and between Elizabeth City and Virginia.
While interstates are not an automatic guarantee of economic development, there are cases where it has helped to give some areas a boost, whether big or small.
Welp, I was wrong.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/12/20/Tire-plants-to-create-800-jobs.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/12/20/Tire-plants-to-create-800-jobs.html)
Here's the official website for the Kingsboro megasite, which includes an aerial view of it's location. Triangle Tire Co. will be it's first major tenant.
https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite (https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite)

It is already near to I-95 and well connected by the US-64 freeway.  I don't see where proposed I-87 should get credit for this.

"The Kingsboro CSX Select Site is strategically located in the heart of the eastern seaboard, just off US Highway 64, and 10 minutes east of Interstate I-95. The capital city, Raleigh, is only one hour to the west."
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on December 23, 2017, 02:34:10 PM
Oddly, their map shows Future I-495 on that part of US 64, which was never on the table as far as I know...

A separate article from Dec 2016 touting the Kingsboro site did not mention interstate to Norfolk at all.  Just that it was on US 64 and 10 minutes from I-95...

Also of note...North Carolina has 4 of these megasties like Kingsboro.  None of them besides Kingsboro is on an existing or imminent interstate corridor (US 1 Moncure; US 64 Siler City; US 421 Liberty).

This article (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article190550539.html) suggests that financial incentives offered by the state and a larger amount by Edgecombe County were a major factor in their decision to locate at Kingsboro.

Zero articles/items I could find mention access to the Port in Norfolk including the State of NC and the tire company itself.  Pretty much all of them mentioned CSX access, I-95, and being near Raleigh.  Only a 2012 article about the site being for sale mentioned that it was equidistant from the ports at Norfolk and Morehead City.

Also count me as a skeptic on any effect from I-87...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 23, 2017, 10:30:17 PM
I-87 appears to already be signed east of I-540. There is a lone I-87 WEST reassurance marker about 2 exits east of 540. Its getting pretty silly out there with the added I-87 markers next to the old signs that still have I-495 on them too.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on December 24, 2017, 01:17:54 AM
I-87 appears to already be signed east of I-540. There is a lone I-87 WEST reassurance marker about 2 exits east of 540. Its getting pretty silly out there with the added I-87 markers next to the old signs that still have I-495 on them too.

So they're adding I-87 shields without removing the I-495 ones?  Sounds like confusion on the part of NCDOT's sign crew -- or the marching orders they were given.  Interesting that it seems the banners will indicate "east" and "west" for I-87; I wonder if the directions will change to N-S north of Williamston when the corridor shifts to US 17?  Unless someone has access to signage plans (in reality it might be way too soon for those to have been formulated), we'll probably not know for several years, unless it's planned to sign the Elizabeth City bypass before the rest of the US 17 portion is completed.  Got a question for NC & vicinity posters:  Were any I-495 shields added to BGS's along us 64 in the last few years, or was that signage limited to freestanding reassurance shields?   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on December 24, 2017, 10:38:23 AM
I-87 appears to already be signed east of I-540. There is a lone I-87 WEST reassurance marker about 2 exits east of 540. Its getting pretty silly out there with the added I-87 markers next to the old signs that still have I-495 on them too.

So they're adding I-87 shields without removing the I-495 ones?  Sounds like confusion on the part of NCDOT's sign crew -- or the marching orders they were given.  Interesting that it seems the banners will indicate "east" and "west" for I-87; I wonder if the directions will change to N-S north of Williamston when the corridor shifts to US 17?  Unless someone has access to signage plans (in reality it might be way too soon for those to have been formulated), we'll probably not know for several years, unless it's planned to sign the Elizabeth City bypass before the rest of the US 17 portion is completed.  Got a question for NC & vicinity posters:  Were any I-495 shields added to BGS's along us 64 in the last few years, or was that signage limited to freestanding reassurance shields?   
I-495 shields were added to BGSs on I-440 and I-540 for the Knightdale Bypass in 2015:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87317c.JPG)

As for I-87 'West' if it is truly marked as that then it's probably an error, other I-87 reassurance markers seen on US 64/264 are marked North/South:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i87kb917ap1w.jpg)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on December 25, 2017, 09:37:55 PM
What overload on the control destinations.  I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.


Anyway, Map Source INC have Future I-87 listed pretty good all the way along both US 64 and US 17 up to the VA Border.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on December 26, 2017, 04:51:41 AM
What overload on the control destinations.  I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.

They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)

Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.

If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on December 26, 2017, 04:45:13 PM
What overload on the control destinations.  I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.

They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)

Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.

If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.


As long as "VA" is specified along with a control city in the other state, that would be appropriate.  Also "Hampton Roads, VA" might be an alternative, as it encompasses all the major cities in that metro area.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 26, 2017, 04:47:57 PM
I-87 appears to already be signed east of I-540. There is a lone I-87 WEST reassurance marker about 2 exits east of 540. Its getting pretty silly out there with the added I-87 markers next to the old signs that still have I-495 on them too.

So they're adding I-87 shields without removing the I-495 ones?  Sounds like confusion on the part of NCDOT's sign crew -- or the marching orders they were given.  Interesting that it seems the banners will indicate "east" and "west" for I-87; I wonder if the directions will change to N-S north of Williamston when the corridor shifts to US 17?  Unless someone has access to signage plans (in reality it might be way too soon for those to have been formulated), we'll probably not know for several years, unless it's planned to sign the Elizabeth City bypass before the rest of the US 17 portion is completed.  Got a question for NC & vicinity posters:  Were any I-495 shields added to BGS's along us 64 in the last few years, or was that signage limited to freestanding reassurance shields?   
I-495 shields were added to BGSs on I-440 and I-540 for the Knightdale Bypass in 2015:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87317c.JPG)

As for I-87 'West' if it is truly marked as that then it's probably an error, other I-87 reassurance markers seen on US 64/264 are marked North/South:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i87kb917ap1w.jpg)

Didn't see any West banners for I-87 when i was running errands today. The stand alone sign reads I-87 South and is between the Wendell Falls Parkway and Smithfield Road.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on December 26, 2017, 05:13:30 PM
What overload on the control destinations.  I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.

They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)

Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.

If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.

Norfolk is years away.  Heck we do not even know if VDOT will build I-87 in their state at this point.  At most it will be a NC thing.

The three destination thing is too much.  Though I got used to it in NJ growing up, secondary signs would work will keeping maybe Rocky Mount and Wilson as primary for this.  Or nix Wilson and just use Rocky Mount and Greenville.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on December 27, 2017, 12:30:31 AM
What overload on the control destinations.  I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.

They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)

Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.

If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.

Norfolk is years away.  Heck we do not even know if VDOT will build I-87 in their state at this point.  At most it will be a NC thing.

The three destination thing is too much.  Though I got used to it in NJ growing up, secondary signs would work will keeping maybe Rocky Mount and Wilson as primary for this.  Or nix Wilson and just use Rocky Mount and Greenville.

EB (I-87 NB) past the US 264 split; just do a dual-control-city series:  Rocky Mount/Tarboro, then Tarboro/Williamston, followed by Williamston/Elizabeth City, Elizabeth City/Hampton Roads (or one of the individual cities within), and simply Hampton Roads to the state line.  To address the long-distance city/metro area, place mileage BGS's including the final destination along the freeway on a regular basis. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on December 27, 2017, 05:07:55 AM
What overload on the control destinations.  I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.

They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)

Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.

If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.

Norfolk is years away.  Heck we do not even know if VDOT will build I-87 in their state at this point.  At most it will be a NC thing.

That didn't stop NCDOT from using Martinsville as a control city for I-73 northbound in Greensboro and Virginia has no intention of building I-73 at all.

On the other hand, VDOT apparently showed a slight interest in I-87, considering that they began their study of I-87 and has been in talks with NCDOT over I-87's routing in Chesapeake. VA Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Lane even threw his two cents in and showed interest in using VA-168. Hampton Roads has more political muscle and their own tax authority. Southwest VA has neither of those advantages when it comes to I-73 (or anything else in general for that matter). That being said, I agree that I-87 is many years away and there are more important issues to deal with at the moment.

I don't think the control cities should be changed right now, but once US-64 is upgraded and I-87 shields pop up at least as far as Williamston and the heavy work begins on US-17, then change it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on December 27, 2017, 07:47:21 AM
Quote
Hampton Roads has more political muscle and their own tax authority.

Don't look for much from this, especially when they need to figure out a way to pay for HRBT widening and either the 3rd Crossing or MMBT widening...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: plain on December 27, 2017, 09:45:47 AM
^Not to mention the widening of the High Rise Bridge & approaches. Yeah, that area already has enough on its plate as it is.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on December 27, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
What overload on the control destinations.  I am sure that the new signs will feature solely Rocky Mount.

They won't. The control cities will remain the same. Sign plans can be seen here:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1 (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/goodbye-interstate-495-hello-interstate.html?m=1)

Wilson and Greenville need to remain as control cities anyway since US-264 goes to those cities while I-87/US-64 does not. Wilson is a junction of I-95/I-795 and Greenville is the largest city in eastern NC with population over 90,000 and serves as the hub of the region.

If there is to be a change in control cities along the I-87 corridor, I would use Norfolk alongside Rocky Mount instead of Nashville at the split in Zebulon.

Norfolk is years away.  Heck we do not even know if VDOT will build I-87 in their state at this point.  At most it will be a NC thing.

That didn't stop NCDOT from using Martinsville as a control city for I-73 northbound in Greensboro and Virginia has no intention of building I-73 at all.

On the other hand, VDOT apparently showed a slight interest in I-87, considering that they began their study of I-87 and has been in talks with NCDOT over I-87's routing in Chesapeake. VA Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Lane even threw his two cents in and showed interest in using VA-168. Hampton Roads has more political muscle and their own tax authority. Southwest VA has neither of those advantages when it comes to I-73 (or anything else in general for that matter). That being said, I agree that I-87 is many years away and there are more important issues to deal with at the moment.

I don't think the control cities should be changed right now, but once US-64 is upgraded and I-87 shields pop up at least as far as Williamston and the heavy work begins on US-17, then change it.



NCDOT put up Martinsville on I-73 northbound as their control city going northbound because it make sense. I-73 North currently (temporarily) ends at NC 68/US 220 north partial interchange and taking US 220 North takes you to Martinsville. It is signed like that to divert long distance traffic OFF US 220 (along I-40, US 29, Wendover, Battleground) through Greensboro.

However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.

I-87 in Virginia might as well get built before I-73 does in Virginia.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on December 27, 2017, 06:50:59 PM
It's entirely possible that the NC-bound I-87 corridor will functionally end at the NC/VA state line and empty out onto US 17, which currently is a combination expressway and (recently) upgraded freeway -- and this situation may last years if not decades until the complications endemic to VA's commonwealth status are resolved in order to plan and deploy I-87 up to I-64.  At that point we'll all see if the NC segment can supply sufficient traffic -- especially of the commercial variety -- to warrant and prompt completion of the corridor in VA.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on December 27, 2017, 07:18:14 PM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.

That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.

I do agree that I-87 will be built before I-73 reaches Martinsville.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on December 27, 2017, 08:42:15 PM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.
That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.

How many times do I have to mention that while I-73 between NC and I-81 has a completed NEPA EIS process, it is a $4 billion project and the existing US-220 is a very capable 4-lane highway?  That sum exceeds any project yet built in the state.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on December 27, 2017, 10:40:12 PM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.

That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.

I do agree that I-87 will be built before I-73 reaches Martinsville.


Nah. the GA is a joke. It is very sad that one part of the state is being ignored while attending others. favorism stinks.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on December 28, 2017, 12:09:49 AM
Nah. the GA is a joke. It is very sad that one part of the state is being ignored while attending others. favorism stinks.

Vomit stinks, and it curves, and it makes a sickening sound when it hits the floor.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on December 28, 2017, 06:54:51 AM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.

That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.

I do agree that I-87 will be built before I-73 reaches Martinsville.


Nah. the GA is a joke. It is very sad that one part of the state is being ignored while attending others. favorism stinks.

The billion $ projects US 121 and US 58 say hello...

And the occasional reminder that NoVA and Hampton Roads collect well over $100M per year in taxes that VDOT must give right back to them outside of their normal district allocations.  Plus some jurisdictions like Fairfax County also put up substantial sums of their own money for transportation projects as well.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 06:58:58 AM
However, speaking as of VA has no interest in building I-73.... that is incorrect. the GA did in fact passed the I-73 Bill proposed by Sen. Stanley last February, however their catch is this: the I-73 bill MUST be passed once again by the GA sometime in 2018 for it to remain in the plans. Therefore there IS some interest in Virginia.
That bill was nothing but a fluff piece to pacify SW VA before the elections. The fact that it has to be passed again next year proves what a joke it was. If they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have added that stipulation. The bottom line is that SW VA simply cannot compete with the likes of NOVA, Hampton Roads or even Richmond. Bill Stanley is just polishing brass on the Titanic at this point.

How many times do I have to mention that while I-73 between NC and I-81 has a completed NEPA EIS process, it is a $4 billion project and the existing US-220 is a very capable 4-lane highway?  That sum exceeds any project yet built in the state.

That doesn't mean that it can't be broken down and built into sections as funding is available the way NC does their projects. Look at I-73 in NC. The entire corridor wasn't funded all at once (some still isn't) and yet they still made significant progress on it. Why VA acts like it has to either build the entire stretch all at once or not turn dirt period is beyond me.

As for US-220, it may be capable between Martinsville and Rocky Mount but I disagree that it's capable north of there, especially once you get closer to Roanoke.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 07:09:27 AM
The billion $ projects US 121 say hello...

Complete waste of money, IMO. I can think of several projects in SW VA that the money is better spent on. Widening I-81, finishing the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, I-73, actually building a US-460/N. Main St interchange in Blacksburg instead of taking the cheap way out...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on December 28, 2017, 07:33:42 AM
The billion $ projects US 121 say hello...

Complete waste of money, IMO. I can think of several projects in SW VA that the money is better spent on. Widening I-81, finishing the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, I-73, actually building a US-460/N. Main St interchange in Blacksburg instead of taking the cheap way out...

I agree with this.  VDOT's own study says West Virginia primarily benefits from this project.  VA 83 between Pound and Haysi has already been improved.  Some spot improvements between Haysi and Grundy are warranted.

A better gauge to see if SW Virginia is really getting the shaft might be if they really rebuild US 58 between Damascus and Volney (or at the very least widen VA 16 from Volney to Marion as a cheap-out).

I did find a study from 1988-95 that actually looked at how districts did (wish the data continued to the modern day).  The question they answered was how much money did the districts get back relative to what they put in.  Only one district got way more back than they put in (Bristol).  The districts that did worst were Salem, Lynchburg, and Richmond.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on December 28, 2017, 08:16:36 AM
How many times do I have to mention that while I-73 between NC and I-81 has a completed NEPA EIS process, it is a $4 billion project and the existing US-220 is a very capable 4-lane highway?  That sum exceeds any project yet built in the state.
That doesn't mean that it can't be broken down and built into sections as funding is available the way NC does their projects. Look at I-73 in NC. The entire corridor wasn't funded all at once (some still isn't) and yet they still made significant progress on it. Why VA acts like it has to either build the entire stretch all at once or not turn dirt period is beyond me.
As for US-220, it may be capable between Martinsville and Rocky Mount but I disagree that it's capable north of there, especially once you get closer to Roanoke.

It is capable enough that it greatly reduces the incentive to build a new Interstate highway to bypass it (let alone one that would cost $4 billion).  The 2 mile section just south of the end of the Southwest Expressway is the only section that is really in need at this point.  Based on the route and its interchanges, I can't see more than 3 or 4 logical segments of independent utility, so that is still billion dollar chunks.

NC had long distances where US-220 was only 2 lanes wide, including the NC-68 bypass that was the preferred route for US-220 traffic to bypass Greensboro, that only now in 2017 is finally being bypassed with a 4-lane highway.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: VTGoose on December 28, 2017, 11:14:27 AM

That doesn't mean that it can't be broken down and built into sections as funding is available the way NC does their projects.

As for US-220, it may be capable between Martinsville and Rocky Mount but I disagree that it's capable north of there, especially once you get closer to Roanoke.

What sections would/could be built? The proposed route for I-73 has pretty much been a new interstate on a new right of way (which is where a lot of the cost -- and resistance -- comes from). There are several parts of U.S. 220 that could be improved to reduce some bad curves and some grades but that wouldn't create an interstate. Fixing the section between Rocky Mount and Roanoke is a whole 'nother mess that will be expensive to fix.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on December 28, 2017, 12:47:36 PM
What sections would/could be built? The proposed route for I-73 has pretty much been a new interstate on a new right of way (which is where a lot of the cost -- and resistance -- comes from). There are several parts of U.S. 220 that could be improved to reduce some bad curves and some grades but that wouldn't create an interstate. Fixing the section between Rocky Mount and Roanoke is a whole 'nother mess that will be expensive to fix.
Bruce in Blacksburg

Provision of full paved shoulders, long left-turn and right-turn lanes, access management improvements, and selected spot-reconstructions, are some of the basic but helpful improvements that could be performed, and for maybe 1 or 2% of the cost of the new Interstate highway.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on December 28, 2017, 05:58:32 PM
The billion $ projects US 121 say hello...

Complete waste of money, IMO. I can think of several projects in SW VA that the money is better spent on. Widening I-81, finishing the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, I-73, actually building a US-460/N. Main St interchange in Blacksburg instead of taking the cheap way out...


I agree with this.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 11:33:55 AM
Provision of full paved shoulders, long left-turn and right-turn lanes, access management improvements, and selected spot-reconstructions, are some of the basic but helpful improvements that could be performed, and for maybe 1 or 2% of the cost of the new Interstate highway.

OK, no problem with those projects, which would improve the existing highway in its present location. But that won't satisfy the crowd that wants a full-on interstate between I-81 and North Carolina and I don't see that happening even in my (adult) kids' lifetimes.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on December 29, 2017, 04:35:13 PM
Provision of full paved shoulders, long left-turn and right-turn lanes, access management improvements, and selected spot-reconstructions, are some of the basic but helpful improvements that could be performed, and for maybe 1 or 2% of the cost of the new Interstate highway.
OK, no problem with those projects, which would improve the existing highway in its present location. But that won't satisfy the crowd that wants a full-on interstate between I-81 and North Carolina and I don't see that happening even in my (adult) kids' lifetimes.
Bruce in Blacksburg

Conceptually I would definitely like to see an Interstate highway built in that corridor, and see the corridor completed south to I-95 in South Carolina as has been studied. 

AADTs on US-220 south of Martinsville are in the 12,000 range, between there and Rocky Mount in the 16,000 range, and between there and the Blue Ridge Parkway in the 24,000 range, and truck percentages in the 10+% range.  Those are hefty numbers compared to rural predecessors to the original Interstate system.  The traffic engineering warrants for an Interstate highway exist today.

If rural Interstate construction was still in the $10 million per mile range like it was not that many years ago, I would be strongly advocating building it.  Nevertheless, there is that $4 billion figure that I am sure some of the posters are tired of seeing me post...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 29, 2017, 06:38:40 PM
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Strider on December 29, 2017, 08:44:19 PM
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.


Exactly. Split into small segments. It is much cheaper that way. NC line to US 58 is the best segment to start.


Either way, I-87 is going to get built before I-73 ever does because of course it connects to Hampton Roads.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:42:38 PM
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.

OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on December 29, 2017, 10:40:03 PM
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.
OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?

Temporary tie-ins would be an issue anywhere on the corridor, for cost as well as feasibility.  A Ridgeway bypass segment would cost probably $60 to $80 million and for no real independent benefit.

The one independent segment that would make sense to build soon would be a 2 or 3 mile extension from the south end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Highway).  It would pass thru and address a congested area and would be expensive.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 30, 2017, 06:54:38 PM
Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.

OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?

Arkansas has a somewhat similar problem with the I-49 Bella Vista Bypass in the Ozarks. The difference is, they really want to build the road. So they've been hacking at it a little bit at a time, building segments initially with 2 lanes. It's taking a pretty long time, but eventually they'll get it done.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: plain on December 30, 2017, 08:59:53 PM
The one independent segment that would make sense to build soon would be a 2 or 3 mile extension from the south end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Highway).  It would pass thru and address a congested area and would be expensive.

Agreed.. matter of fact, IF Virginia ever decides to build its segment, it should be built starting at the northern end going southward.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on December 30, 2017, 09:04:39 PM
OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?
Arkansas has a somewhat similar problem with the I-49 Bella Vista Bypass in the Ozarks. The difference is, they really want to build the road. So they've been hacking at it a little bit at a time, building segments initially with 2 lanes. It's taking a pretty long time, but eventually they'll get it done.

They built part of it in the original Interstate system as I-540, relatively little so far as I-49, about 180 miles between Texarkana and Fort Smith that hasn't even been touched and the existing road is only 2 lanes.  When... 2100?
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on December 30, 2017, 11:39:02 PM
The one independent segment that would make sense to build soon would be a 2 or 3 mile extension from the south end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Highway).  It would pass thru and address a congested area and would be expensive.
Agreed.. matter of fact, IF Virginia ever decides to build its segment, it should be built starting at the northern end going southward.

Actually the 'northern end' would be the upgrade of I-581 and the Southwest Expressway, probably to 8 lanes.  But I will grant that the segment I outlined above has standalone utility.

Segments going south while they don't have to be built at exactly the same time, there does need to be a flow of southward progression in a reasonable timeframe, say all contracts let within 3 to 5 years.

Such as when I-77 was built in Virginia, the segments north of I-81 opened from 1972 to 1975; the segments south of I-81 opened from 1977 to 1979.  Of course it is very hard to compare to today, as the average construction cost per mile of I-77 was $3 million back then.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2018, 09:12:05 PM
Forgot to add, NCDOT finally finished adding exit numbers along US-64 (particularly on the Nashville bypass) from I-440 to at least I-95 (if not beyond). Seems kinda pointless though since they will eventually be changed to I-87's mileposts vs. US-64's.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on January 08, 2018, 12:13:42 PM
Forgot to add, NCDOT finally finished adding exit numbers along US-64 (particularly on the Nashville bypass) from I-440 to at least I-95 (if not beyond). Seems kinda pointless though since they will eventually be changed to I-87's mileposts vs. US-64's.
Curious that NCDOT did not do what they did with US 74 east of I-95. There they put up I-74 mileposts and placed I-74 exit numbers for the US 74 exits in anticipation of future construction. Guess the US 64 contract was designed before the I-87 designation and no one considered delaying the project even though the numbers will be changed in the future.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 12:20:29 PM
Forgot to add, NCDOT finally finished adding exit numbers along US-64 (particularly on the Nashville bypass) from I-440 to at least I-95 (if not beyond). Seems kinda pointless though since they will eventually be changed to I-87's mileposts vs. US-64's.
Traditionally, yes Interstate exits should not use a US route that is with them, but keep in mind I-17 in AZ does not use its own exit numbers.  I-515 in NV, which uses US 95's mileage.   Then I-70 in IL that continues another interstate's mileage scheme.

Even if I-87 uses US 64's scheme that adds hundreds of miles to it, it really does not matter as long as its consistent to the end.

Being that said I would not petition for it as it should be zero from I-40 as I assume its concurrent with I-440 unlike MS not making I-22 concurrent with I-269 despite TN having no interest in building their part of the Memphis to Birmingham freeway.  But if NCDOT did not care about formalities as Arizona or Nevada do, for us we should not worry too much about it other than just simply pointing the fact out as discussion.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: 1 on January 12, 2018, 12:25:18 PM
Then I-70 in IL that continues another interstate's mileage scheme.

What is unusual about I-70 in Illinois? The exit numbers seem perfectly normal, looking at the Wikipedia article on I-70 in Illinois.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 12:30:06 PM
Not really as they continue I-270's scheme not I-55's as originally (before the Stan Musial Bridge that is) used I-55's zero point on the Poplar Street Bridge.  There is a 2 mile difference, not seen unless you look close enough.

The point was you cannot be precise, so if NCDOT wants to use US 64's numbering than that would not be so strange.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on January 12, 2018, 05:45:55 PM
The likely outcome will be that I-87 will have its own exit numbers starting with "0" at the I-40/440 junction and continuing on until the nascent Interstate turns north onto US 17 at Williamston.  US 64's numbering will "phantom" over I-87 for the length of the multiplex and resume east of US 17, so the exit numbers on the freeway section west of Columbia won't need to be changed.  I can't imaging NCDOT wanting to have I-87 change its exit number pattern once on US 17, so it is likely that the whole corridor will have a unique exit list.  But I'd also bet that any exit number change on US 64 won't be implemented until most if not all of the US 17 portion of I-87 is in place, even if the US 64 E-W segment is co-signed as I-87 prior to the entire corridor's completion.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 06:05:49 PM
Yes it will have its own exit numbers.  But that was not the point!  I just stated that exit numbers do not have to conform to the standards.

Someone said that the exit numbers needed to be changed again once all is in place. I just said its not really that necessary, not saying that they will not change them.

You bring up an interesting point, as far as US 17 I imagine that it will not change them to match its mileposts for sure, but if there ever was someone who thought along the line that the people in Arizona was thinking when numbering I-17 (which I would hope is rare) there is no law stopping them.

I am not in favor of them using US 64 or US 17's mileage, but in favor of all using the actual interstate including I-17.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on January 12, 2018, 09:41:55 PM
Yes it will have its own exit numbers.  But that was not the point!  I just stated that exit numbers do not have to conform to the standards.

Someone said that the exit numbers needed to be changed again once all is in place. I just said its not really that necessary, not saying that they will not change them.

You bring up an interesting point, as far as US 17 I imagine that it will not change them to match its mileposts for sure, but if there ever was someone who thought along the line that the people in Arizona was thinking when numbering I-17 (which I would hope is rare) there is no law stopping them.

I am not in favor of them using US 64 or US 17's mileage, but in favor of all using the actual interstate including I-17.

Arizona's milepost/exit system is indeed weird; why it's persisted for so many decades is beyond me (I guess there haven't been too many complaints about it -- and you can calculate mileage using the supplied numbers).  And the only Interstate involved within that system is I-17; all the rest are calculated from the point where they enter the state.  And you're right; it seems like the mileage system in AZ is a matter of administrative law formulated within AZDOT bylaws -- maybe I'm mistaken, but it doesn't seem like an issue normally tackled by the state legislature but rather worked out in the bowels of the state highway department. 

But to the matter at hand: it's probable that NC will retain the existing mileposts and exit numbering along the I-87 corridor until such time as the corridor is substantially completed.  It's likely that since the US 64 freeway has been in place for a couple of decades or more that businesses along the way make written or media advertising reference to the closest exit; it would probably be prudent to leave matters as they are as long as possible -- and trot out the revised exit numbers as part of the "completion rituals" of the full corridor.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on January 13, 2018, 08:08:13 PM
I think that would be fair to wait till all is done.  Right now the businesses are using the existing ones and that could create a confusion situation.

Yes AZ is weird, but also NY has the same situation with I-87 and three schemes, but no one complains about it as most New Yorkers refer to I-87 by the names, in which in their minds its three separate roads so the numbers do not seem redundant.   

Yes, I-87 is not hard to calculate and so is I-515 in Vegas.  Plus I-69 in IN north of Indy as it starts with an even 200 and goes north from there.   Of course, INDOT is not accurate with the mileage from the original southern terminus being close to 200 miles from Kentucky either, but I am sure that no one ever would calculate though the discrepancy except maybe a few members here, with one who might already have written INDOT and gave them a lesson in FHWA standards, but really its good as long as you have a system that works and close to accurate numbers.

Heck the Garden State Parkway even with its exit numbers being a mile or so off (i.e MP 136 at Exit 135, MP 124 being south of Exit 123, and MP 140 at Exit 138 on the CR 509 overpass) there its not that big a deal either.   However, until the US 17 upgrade gets completed the current US 64 part is fine IMO for a good reference in exits.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 14, 2018, 11:01:58 AM
The thing is, there were no exit numbers on US-64 until the past year in many places.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on January 14, 2018, 04:49:31 PM
The likely outcome will be that I-87 will have its own exit numbers starting with "0" at the I-40/440 junction and continuing on until the nascent Interstate turns north onto US 17 at Williamston.  US 64's numbering will "phantom" over I-87 for the length of the multiplex and resume east of US 17, so the exit numbers on the freeway section west of Columbia won't need to be changed.  I can't imaging NCDOT wanting to have I-87 change its exit number pattern once on US 17, so it is likely that the whole corridor will have a unique exit list.  But I'd also bet that any exit number change on US 64 won't be implemented until most if not all of the US 17 portion of I-87 is in place, even if the US 64 E-W segment is co-signed as I-87 prior to the entire corridor's completion.
NCDOT is already planning to change the exit numbers along US 64/264 to I-87 numbers when the new overhead signage is put up sometime this year. Here are signage plans for the Business 64 exit in Wendell at the east end of the Knightdale Bypass:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i87signplanbus64ncdot917.JPG)

Other sign plans can be found on my Future I-87 in NC website:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on January 14, 2018, 08:19:16 PM
The thing is, there were no exit numbers on US-64 until the past year in many places.
Is that not a thing in NC for many US route freeways?

I have seen event the part west of US 1 use exit numbers back in 2003, so I assumed it was a new thing.  I even saw other US routes in other parts use them too.  I cannot remember where and what route had them, but I assumed that NC was giving all US route freeways exit numbers.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 14, 2018, 10:01:34 PM
They are a bit inconsistent with exit numbers on US routes. North of Raleigh they have 1 or 2 exit numbers signed on the US-1 Wake Forest bypass despite it not even being a freeway there, but the Henderson bypass has no exit numbers. They recently signed a few right at I-85 as part of the reconstruction project there.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: roadman65 on January 19, 2018, 07:34:13 PM
Oh yes now I remember US 1 started using them between Sanford and Carey post freeway widening in the early naughts when the super 2 was made into a standard divided freeway.

Probably that new freeway stretch added north of Southern Pines is signed with numbers I imagine as well.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on January 29, 2018, 07:29:00 AM
The latest on the I-87 study of US-17.

http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2018/01/29/New-I-87-route-option-studied.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2018/01/29/New-I-87-route-option-studied.html)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation is studying a new route for proposed Interstate 87 north of Hertford that wouldn’t require the property condemnation needed for the highway’s current route.

The current route for the proposed I-87 through Perquimans County upgrades the existing U.S. Highway 17 to interstate standards. A second route, however, would create a new road that would start near U.S. 17’s intersection with Wiggins Road in Winfall and continue north to the area near Victory Baptist Church across the Perquimans County line in Pasquotank County.

One reason the alternate route for I-87 might be attractive is that it would bypass existing homes and businesses on that section of U.S. 17. Upgrading the existing road to interstate standards would likely require demolition of existing homes and businesses and creation of new access roads.

“If you stayed on the current U.S. 17 there would have to be service roads and some of those would go right through people’s property,” said Angela Welsh, director of the Area Regional Planning Organization based in Hertford.

The DOT study that includes the new route for I-87 north of Hertford looked at an 80-mile stretch of the highway through seven counties. The proposed interstate begins in Williamston in Martin County and continues north through Camden County to the Virginia line.

Welsh cautioned that planning for the proposed I-87 is still in the early stages.

“A feasibility study doesn’t determine much, because it’s just a study,” she said. “This is just a preliminary document.”

Welsh said there will be plenty of time for public comment on the plan once further studies are completed. The final draft of the study is expected to be complete early next year.

Both county officials in Perquimans and town officials in Hertford have already said they don’t want I-87 to include a bypass of Hertford. Because of that, DOT didn’t include a bypass of the town in the feasibility study.

Two I-87 projects in Perquimans are proceeding in the planning stage. One creates an interchange on U.S. 17 at New Hope Road. DOT currently has right-of-way acquisition for the project slated to start in 2023 with construction to follow in 2025.

Another project would build either an interchange or flyover at Wynne Fork Road. Welsh said right-of-way purchases for that project are slated to start in 2024 with construction to follow in 2026.

Welsh said she is unaware of any future public meetings on the I-87 project for now. More may be known in January 2019 when the state releases the final draft of the plan, which will also include a timeline for when funding for the project might be available, she said.

If and when the project moves further along, a “merger team” including both state and federal officials will be created. It’s at that point that environmental studies will be conducted and historic preservation issues will be addressed.

“There is going to be a lot of going back and forth once the merger team is created,” Welsh said.

For more information on the I-87 plan, visit https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us17-feasibility-study/.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 29, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on January 29, 2018, 08:54:35 PM
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.

Zero chance.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on January 30, 2018, 05:54:16 PM
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.

Zero chance.

I'll be something of a contrarian here and say that if I-87 reaches the state line as a continuous route from Raleigh what VADot will do is sign the new "freeway" segment south of the I-64/264/US 17 junction as I-87, and simply put either green signs of a TBD size along the remainder stating "future I-87 corridor" or simply shield assemblies stating "TO I-87" with a forward trailblazer arrow.  But they'll have a couple of decades left before they decide exactly how to proceed.  But I don't anticipate any prioritization of further improvements to US 17 in Chesapeake unless to satisfy local demand.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 30, 2018, 06:36:48 PM
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.

Zero chance.

I'll be something of a contrarian here and say that if I-87 reaches the state line as a continuous route from Raleigh what VADot will do is sign the new "freeway" segment south of the I-64/264/US 17 junction as I-87, and simply put either green signs of a TBD size along the remainder stating "future I-87 corridor" or simply shield assemblies stating "TO I-87" with a forward trailblazer arrow.  But they'll have a couple of decades left before they decide exactly how to proceed.  But I don't anticipate any prioritization of further improvements to US 17 in Chesapeake unless to satisfy local demand.
It will be 2040 before this needs to be addressed.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 31, 2018, 05:13:08 PM
I'll turn 56 in 2040. Maybe "future me" can keep tabs on how Virginia deals with Interstate 87.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on January 31, 2018, 08:35:28 PM
It will be 2040 before this needs to be addressed.

This road won't be needed even in 2040, IMHO.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 15, 2018, 05:29:32 PM
Maybe if these segments are built, it will build momentum for Virginia to eventually fund and build their segments as well.

Zero chance.

I'll be something of a contrarian here and say that if I-87 reaches the state line as a continuous route from Raleigh what VADot will do is sign the new "freeway" segment south of the I-64/264/US 17 junction as I-87, and simply put either green signs of a TBD size along the remainder stating "future I-87 corridor" or simply shield assemblies stating "TO I-87" with a forward trailblazer arrow.  But they'll have a couple of decades left before they decide exactly how to proceed.  But I don't anticipate any prioritization of further improvements to US 17 in Chesapeake unless to satisfy local demand.

I spoke with someone in Chesapeake last month and they have mentioned awareness of the new interstate. Also, the city of Chesapeake has requested VDOT to begin an US 17 Interstate / Interchange Feasibility Study, which would identify where interchanges could be located with the new highway, and how to address upgrading the road to full interstate. It will obviously be a decade or more before any construction occurs, but the feasibility study has begun, which will take a couple of years to complete I assume.

Here's the letter with information about the study - http://files.constantcontact.com/2d09bb17be/38bd3e8d-7938-4453-ac21-829bfcf0f481.pdf (http://files.constantcontact.com/2d09bb17be/38bd3e8d-7938-4453-ac21-829bfcf0f481.pdf)

Hopefully by 2040 or sooner, the road is complete through both Virginia and North Carolina. And hopefully Virginia is willing to set a 70mph speed limit on south 17 in Chesapeake, knowing their history with low speeds on interstates in Hampton Roads.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on February 18, 2018, 10:07:29 AM
Tidbit from a column written by Larry Lombardi, economic director of Currituck County, pushing for using the proposed Currituck connector route to link with VA-168.

https://pilotonline.com/inside-business/news/columns/article_e4433ea9-96f7-57e6-a3ef-f342f52c34f3.html (https://pilotonline.com/inside-business/news/columns/article_e4433ea9-96f7-57e6-a3ef-f342f52c34f3.html)

Quote
The port set a new record for volume in 2017 by handling more than 2.84 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units). Roughly 150,000 of those containers moved to and/or from North Carolina.

With that much product rolling back and forth from Hampton Roads across the border, it’s more urgent than ever that key regional transportation projects move forward. At the top of the list is Interstate 87, a high-speed, unobstructed route between Norfolk and the Raleigh/Research Triangle area of North Carolina.

Interstate 87 will be a big step toward solving our “cul-de-sac” conundrum. Traffic flow has never been ideal in Hampton Roads, but we can’t just sit by and let infrastructure and geography limitations undo the port’s progress. The more efficiently cargo can move from ship to destination, the faster our entire region can benefit.

We need I-87 to become a priority for both Virginia and North Carolina, and we need it to come through Currituck County.

One proposal from the North Carolina Department of Transportation has I-87 following U.S. 17 through Edenton and Hertford before joining Dominion Boulevard into Chesapeake.

We prefer an alternate proposed route that creates an east-west connector through northern Currituck. The new road would link with Virginia 168 before it becomes the Chesapeake Expressway (a connector to Interstates 64 and 464). Our belief is the new alternate would be built closer to interstate standards than U.S. 17, and it would provide a closer route to the various port facilities.

While the reality of any finished road may be decades away, the time for discussion is now.

Not only will I-87 create a valuable connection from Hampton Roads to Raleigh, but the route will open up a world of opportunity for new companies and businesses that want to connect with the Port of Virginia – and the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 18, 2018, 03:03:09 PM
Tidbit from a column written by Larry Lombardi, economic director of Currituck County, pushing for using the proposed Currituck connector route to link with VA-168.
[...]
Not only will I-87 create a valuable connection from Hampton Roads to Raleigh, but the route will open up a world of opportunity for new companies and businesses that want to connect with the Port of Virginia – and the rest of the world.

Baloney, any way you slice it. 

It would be much longer distance and time than the existing Interstate and 4-lane connection.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 18, 2018, 06:36:14 PM
Tidbit from a column written by Larry Lombardi, economic director of Currituck County, pushing for using the proposed Currituck connector route to link with VA-168.
[...]
Not only will I-87 create a valuable connection from Hampton Roads to Raleigh, but the route will open up a world of opportunity for new companies and businesses that want to connect with the Port of Virginia – and the rest of the world.

Baloney, any way you slice it. 

It would be much longer distance and time than the existing Interstate and 4-lane connection.

I sliced it and it was tasty.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 18, 2018, 08:45:45 PM
Tidbit from a column written by Larry Lombardi, economic director of Currituck County, pushing for using the proposed Currituck connector route to link with VA-168.
[...]
Not only will I-87 create a valuable connection from Hampton Roads to Raleigh, but the route will open up a world of opportunity for new companies and businesses that want to connect with the Port of Virginia – and the rest of the world.

Baloney, any way you slice it. 

It would be much longer distance and time than the existing Interstate and 4-lane connection.

I sliced it and it was tasty.

It's still baloney, no matter how you dice it or slice it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: fillup420 on February 18, 2018, 10:20:51 PM
I really just don't see any reason to spend millions of dollars on a road that is already there, and capable of handling the amount of traffic it sees. This all seems like a lot of effort to be able to say "take I-87 north" instead of "take US 64 east to US 17 north". That money be much better spent elsewhere, because general public doesn't give a shit if any given highway is an interstate or not.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on February 19, 2018, 06:16:32 AM
^ For whatever reason, North Carolina businesses do give a s*** whether it's an Interstate or not...
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 19, 2018, 12:17:27 PM
I really just don't see any reason to spend millions of dollars on a road that is already there, and capable of handling the amount of traffic it sees. This all seems like a lot of effort to be able to say "take I-87 north" instead of "take US 64 east to US 17 north". That money be much better spent elsewhere, because general public doesn't give a shit if any given highway is an interstate or not.

The road can definitely handle growing traffic volumes for years to come, but the point of it is to take traffic from Raleigh and I-95 to Norfolk. The quickest way to do that now though is to take I-95 to U.S. 58 in Emporia then to Norfolk, but the point of the upgrades for I-87 is to make U.S. 64/17 faster, moving more people onto this quicker, and high speed route. Yes, it still may be slightly more mileage than 95/58, but factor in a 70-75mph speed, and it's quicker.  Also, traffic will mainly be in North Carolina traveling from Raleigh to Norfolk as opposed to Virginia, so more money for North Carolina towns/businesses located near the route, and more business growth.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on February 19, 2018, 01:58:53 PM
Quote
and more business growth.

This is exactly why the North Carolina politicians are trying to sell this route, even though the aforementioned 95/58 route would A) be shorter* and B) be cheaper to upgrade** with a higher return-on-investment.  Except between Holland and Suffolk and (IMO) right at 95, improvements to 58 can largely be done along the existing 4-lane.  The US 17 corridor would require significantly more work with a lot more wetland impact...ESPECIALLY if the Currituck County brainiacs want to get this new-alignment corridor between US 17 and NC/VA 168, though upgrading US 13/17 from Williamston to Windsor would also have a lot of wetland impact because of the Roanoke River and its vicinity.

* - I-95/US 64 to I-64/I-464/US 17 is approximately 134 miles via I-95/US 58, 150 miles via US 64/US 17, and approximately 151 miles via US 64/US 17/Currituck Connector idea/VA 168.

** - Upgrading US 58 would require approximately 42 miles of improvements, plus 2 interchanges on an existing limited-access segment.  Upgrading US 17 would require about 66 miles of improvements.  Existing controlled-access bypasses (Courtland, Franklin, and Suffolk for 58, Windsor, Edenton, and E-City for 17) were not included in these totals.  In fairness, the 95/58 corridor would probably require widening of I-95, but many would argue that 95 needs widening anyway, even if I-87 followed the 64/17 corridor.


Quote
The quickest way to do that now though is to take I-95 to U.S. 58 in Emporia then to Norfolk, but the point of the upgrades for I-87 is to make U.S. 64/17 faster, moving more people onto this quicker, and high speed route.

Even if the 64/17 corridor were upgraded to be 70 MPH throughout, it would be all of 90 seconds faster than the 95/58 corridor is TODAY without improvements.

In short, even with a 70 MPH I-87, it would effectively be no faster than the 95/58 corridor.  90 seconds is basically a rounding error given the distance involved.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 19, 2018, 03:47:03 PM
The road can definitely handle growing traffic volumes for years to come, but the point of it is to take traffic from Raleigh and I-95 to Norfolk. The quickest way to do that now though is to take I-95 to U.S. 58 in Emporia then to Norfolk, but the point of the upgrades for I-87 is to make U.S. 64/17 faster, moving more people onto this quicker, and high speed route. Yes, it still may be slightly more mileage than 95/58, but factor in a 70-75mph speed, and it's quicker.  Also, traffic will mainly be in North Carolina traveling from Raleigh to Norfolk as opposed to Virginia, so more money for North Carolina towns/businesses located near the route, and more business growth.

"I-87" would be about 25 miles longer, the new route would take considerably more time, and for large trucks with their low fuel mileage there would be a substantial financial penalty as well.  I-95 has a 70 mph limit.  I cannot see any end-to-end trip justification for this idea.

I-95 and US-58 are not going to stand still, at minimum there will be a number of major improvements over the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Jordanes on February 19, 2018, 06:10:48 PM
I heard the announcer on North Carolina Public Radio talking about the expansion of NC 540 and they said "it would connect to I-495 near Knightdale". Clearly, someone hasn't yet gotten onto the I-87 bandwagon.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: bob7374 on February 19, 2018, 06:24:27 PM
I heard the announcer on North Carolina Public Radio talking about the expansion of NC 540 and they said "it would connect to I-495 near Knightdale". Clearly, someone hasn't yet gotten onto the I-87 bandwagon.
In the announcer's defense, he/she was reading from the latest NCDOT press release which refers to the Knightdale Bypass as US 64/264 (I-495). A month ago when the first press release about the upcoming 540 public meetings came up with the same outdated information I sent an e-mail to the address listed on their Compete 540 website saying shouldn't the site and the press release be updated to use the new I-87 designation instead of I-495. Got a standard response e-mail thanking me for my suggestions, but as expected no changes. Hope someone at the meeting will bring this up, maybe someone will be embarrassed enough to work to get the site information changed.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on February 20, 2018, 12:11:19 AM
What it boils down to is this:  NC is ready & willing to build their 90+% of the corridor's length, while VA by all indications has expressed a profound disinterest in any improvements to a Raleigh-Hampton Roads corridor.  As observers, we can hash out all the pros and cons of building any Interstate-grade route between those two locations ad nauseum, but, like so many projects in so many venues, it comes down to simple political will -- NC has it and is willing to direct it to projects such as this, while VA in general does not.  Whether VA's reluctance is warranted, given the almost perpetual needs of NoVA's suburb-serving network and its corresponding drain on resources, is a matter that will be germane to any attempt to plan, much less deploy, long-distance facilities elsewhere in the state (e.g., I-73).  But it was likely apparent 27 years ago when the first ISTEA-related High Priority Corridors were formulated, including #13, which is now the nascent I-87.  Not a direct connection by any means, but one that eventually proved politically feasible merely by its NC dominance.  Over the years, pretty much most of us on this forum formulated, even within our own minds, a US 58-based Interstate connector from Hampton Roads to I-95 & I-85 to give that metro area an efficient outlet to corridors heading south (essentially filling in an obvious gap); it was the most logical and reasonable route to utilize for that purpose.   Nevertheless, anyone familiar with VA political idiom likely consigned such a corridor to their own "fictional" compendium, realizing that the likelihood of it actually being done were slim & none.  NC became the beneficiary of that equation; they had their own row to hoe -- US 64 east of Raleigh -- and were more than willing to incorporate that within the overall "corridor to Norfolk" plan, since it had been built as a freeway (albeit not to Interstate criteria) out as far as Tarboro.  Hardly by coincidence, the section of 64 from Tarboro to US 17 does meet Interstate standards, being built after 1991, when HPC 13 was adopted.  I-87 isn't just a newfangled and fanciful way to divert traffic and possibly business to northeast NC; this plan has been fomenting within NC circles for a long while; they just "pounced" in 2016, coincidentally (maybe) at the quarter-century anniversary of the corridor's inception. 

As long as publicly-funded transportation facilities and the policy issues surrounding them remain a political football, things (shit?) like this will invariably happen.  Ironically, VA's long-noted commonwealth status may actually be the "saving grace" of that state's short portion of this corridor;  from the cites earlier in the thread, Chesapeake may actually be more interested in upgrading their portion than the state itself; it'll be interesting (and possibly amusing) to watch this play out.   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2018, 12:34:24 AM
What it boils down to is this:  NC is ready & willing to build their 90+% of the corridor's length, while VA by all indications has expressed a profound disinterest in any improvements to a Raleigh-Hampton Roads corridor.

NC can go pound sand.  VA US-17 south of I-64 is already a modern 4-lane limited access highway, the northern part built to full freeway standards.  They just spent $430 million on the Dominion Boulevard project.  The corridor should be adequate for 20 to 30 years into the future, with perhaps the northernmost two intersections replaced with interchanges sometime in the future.

VA has billions of dollars of very complex projects programmed in the Hampton Roads area, the focus is there for that region.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on February 20, 2018, 07:30:47 AM
Quote from: sparker
Whether VA's reluctance is warranted, given the almost perpetual needs of NoVA's suburb-serving network and its corresponding drain on resources

I wouldn't call it a drain on resources when NoVA generates almost half of the state's revenue.  It's also not a "drain on resources" when there's more tax generation in that region than the state subsequently spends there.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on February 20, 2018, 08:12:16 AM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I-42 and I-795 are the two most important future interstate corridors in eastern NC (if not the entire state) right now. Everything else in that region is secondary. Until those two corridors are finished, I-87 shouldn’t be anywhere near a priority.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 20, 2018, 10:13:45 AM
What it boils down to is this:  NC is ready & willing to build their 90+% of the corridor's length, while VA by all indications has expressed a profound disinterest in any improvements to a Raleigh-Hampton Roads corridor.  As observers, we can hash out all the pros and cons of building any Interstate-grade route between those two locations ad nauseum, but, like so many projects in so many venues, it comes down to simple political will -- NC has it and is willing to direct it to projects such as this, while VA in general does not.  Whether VA's reluctance is warranted, given the almost perpetual needs of NoVA's suburb-serving network and its corresponding drain on resources, is a matter that will be germane to any attempt to plan, much less deploy, long-distance facilities elsewhere in the state (e.g., I-73).  But it was likely apparent 27 years ago when the first ISTEA-related High Priority Corridors were formulated, including #13, which is now the nascent I-87.  Not a direct connection by any means, but one that eventually proved politically feasible merely by its NC dominance.  Over the years, pretty much most of us on this forum formulated, even within our own minds, a US 58-based Interstate connector from Hampton Roads to I-95 & I-85 to give that metro area an efficient outlet to corridors heading south (essentially filling in an obvious gap); it was the most logical and reasonable route to utilize for that purpose.   Nevertheless, anyone familiar with VA political idiom likely consigned such a corridor to their own "fictional" compendium, realizing that the likelihood of it actually being done were slim & none.  NC became the beneficiary of that equation; they had their own row to hoe -- US 64 east of Raleigh -- and were more than willing to incorporate that within the overall "corridor to Norfolk" plan, since it had been built as a freeway (albeit not to Interstate criteria) out as far as Tarboro.  Hardly by coincidence, the section of 64 from Tarboro to US 17 does meet Interstate standards, being built after 1991, when HPC 13 was adopted.  I-87 isn't just a newfangled and fanciful way to divert traffic and possibly business to northeast NC; this plan has been fomenting within NC circles for a long while; they just "pounced" in 2016, coincidentally (maybe) at the quarter-century anniversary of the corridor's inception. 

As long as publicly-funded transportation facilities and the policy issues surrounding them remain a political football, things (shit?) like this will invariably happen.  Ironically, VA's long-noted commonwealth status may actually be the "saving grace" of that state's short portion of this corridor;  from the cites earlier in the thread, Chesapeake may actually be more interested in upgrading their portion than the state itself; it'll be interesting (and possibly amusing) to watch this play out.   

Pretty much. Everyone agrees I-95/US 58 is the shorter/better route, but Virginia will not make that a full interstate route and North Carolina knows that people program their GPS devices to follow all interstates, so it's a no brainer North Carolina would push for their route thanks to the void Virginia left.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: michealbond on February 20, 2018, 03:24:15 PM
The portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.

Not sure why folks like are so upset about this. There will still be plenty of people using the US 58 route. Do people really care that it's a closer route? Will it really be faster when people have to sit on the side of the road in Emporia for an extra 20 or 30 minutes waiting on a cop that pulled them over for going 50 in a 45? Are they going to want to deal with having to go all the way back to Emporia to pay the ticket?

Sure, it's faster. You may save 15+ minutes going the current way, even when I-87 is 70mph once completed. But there's also an "ease" factor that travelers must consider as well. There are plenty of stoplights between Emporia and Chesapeake. Once completed, people will care that they can go 70+mph uninterrupted to their destination on I-87 vs. 87/95/US58 combo. Add in the cops on the route, and I-87 looks like a better option, regardless of mileage.

People do like simplicity. Not much simpler than "Take I-87 North all the way to Norfolk" or "Take I-87 South all the way to Raleigh".
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on February 20, 2018, 04:17:41 PM
What it boils down to is this:  NC is ready & willing to build their 90+% of the corridor's length, while VA by all indications has expressed a profound disinterest in any improvements to a Raleigh-Hampton Roads corridor.

NC can go pound sand.  VA US-17 south of I-64 is already a modern 4-lane limited access highway, the northern part built to full freeway standards.  They just spent $430 million on the Dominion Boulevard project.  The corridor should be adequate for 20 to 30 years into the future, with perhaps the northernmost two intersections replaced with interchanges sometime in the future.

VA has billions of dollars of very complex projects programmed in the Hampton Roads area, the focus is there for that region.
Quote from: sparker
Whether VA's reluctance is warranted, given the almost perpetual needs of NoVA's suburb-serving network and its corresponding drain on resources
I wouldn't call it a drain on resources when NoVA generates almost half of the state's revenue.  It's also not a "drain on resources" when there's more tax generation in that region than the state subsequently spends there.

Further upthread I speculated that VA's action, once the NC segment of I-87 was essentially complete, would be to sign the freeway portion of US 17 and post the remainder as "TO I-87" and leave it at that for at least the near term; I'm sticking by that assessment.  Whether Chesapeake itself elects to take the lead toward upgrading that remainder has yet TBD; it's certainly too early to engage in speculation as to which way they'll go some 20-30 years down the line. 

And I wasn't intending to sound perjorative regarding NoVA's characterization as a "drain" on resources -- given the fact that the region is one of the two largest metros in the state its needs, of course, will naturally be given some level of priority.  My main concern is that such prioritization may become internalized to the point of consistently excluding consideration of projects in the rest of the state; from all accounts this is an ongoing issue in that state.   And one can't deny that the region is perpetually in the national spotlight simply as an adjunct to D.C.; while Adam's likely correct as to their proportional contribution to the tax base, they're also the proverbial "squeaky wheel" -- with an outsize propensity to "squeak" loudly and clearly when issues emerge (an outgrowth of the proximity to a power center).  Their status as a "test bed" for road-related measures regarding congestion (e.g., the various strategies employed along I-66) just serves to magnify that spotlight; the area tends be a project "magnet" as a consequence.  For better or worse, that has tended to leave much of the rest of VA "high & dry" regarding funding;  whether that's an issue that will continue or escalate will likely depend upon the direction taken in Richmond in the decades to come. 
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2018, 04:23:43 PM
The portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.

Myth.  Have driven it numerous times over the last 20 years and rarely see a single cop.

It is 25 miles shorter, and there are not very many signals, and the 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will soon be widened to 6 lanes with access management.  The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, will be upgraded to full freeway standards long before the NC boondoggle is completed (if it ever is).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2018, 04:26:34 PM
Further upthread I speculated that VA's action, once the NC segment of I-87 was essentially complete, would be to sign the freeway portion of US 17 and post the remainder as "TO I-87" and leave it at that for at least the near term; I'm sticking by that assessment.  Whether Chesapeake itself elects to take the lead toward upgrading that remainder has yet TBD; it's certainly too early to engage in speculation as to which way they'll go some 20-30 years down the line. 

Official plans don't go 20-30 years into the future.  STIPs are usually in the 5 to 6 year range.  Long term needs assessments such as 20 years are general and are unconstrained in funding.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 20, 2018, 05:04:41 PM
Who knows if any of us will still be alive 20-30 years from now? Anything can happen.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: froggie on February 20, 2018, 05:32:01 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku
Pretty much. Everyone agrees I-95/US 58 is the shorter/better route, but Virginia will not make that a full interstate route and North Carolina knows that people program their GPS devices to follow all interstates, so it's a no brainer North Carolina would push for their route thanks to the void Virginia left.

However, they also have a tendency to program their GPS to follow the shortest or fastest routes.  Which would still keep them in Virginia.

Quote from: michaelbond
The portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.

This keeps coming up on this forum.  And while Emporia in particular has a reputation, my own considerable experience with the corridor is that it's more hype than reality.

Sure there's some cops, but no more than I've seen elsewhere (including North Carolina).

Quote from: sparker
And I wasn't intending to sound perjorative regarding NoVA's characterization as a "drain" on resources -- given the fact that the region is one of the two largest metros in the state its needs, of course, will naturally be given some level of priority.  My main concern is that such prioritization may become internalized to the point of consistently excluding consideration of projects in the rest of the state; from all accounts this is an ongoing issue in that state.   And one can't deny that the region is perpetually in the national spotlight simply as an adjunct to D.C.; while Adam's likely correct as to their proportional contribution to the tax base, they're also the proverbial "squeaky wheel" -- with an outsize propensity to "squeak" loudly and clearly when issues emerge (an outgrowth of the proximity to a power center).  Their status as a "test bed" for road-related measures regarding congestion (e.g., the various strategies employed along I-66) just serves to magnify that spotlight; the area tends be a project "magnet" as a consequence.  For better or worse, that has tended to leave much of the rest of VA "high & dry" regarding funding;  whether that's an issue that will continue or escalate will likely depend upon the direction taken in Richmond in the decades to come.

Most of the projects in the "magnet" that you are referring to are not significant-cost projects, or have a large contingent of local or private funding involved.  This is *NOT* leaving the rest of the state "high and dry".  That the Northern Virginia (and, more recently Hampton Roads) jurisdictions are putting local funding (not easy to acquire given the state's use of the Dillon Rule) into projects on the primary system which is ultimately VDOT's responsibility is a strong indicator that the two main urban regions in the state are just as "high and dry" as the rest of the state.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on February 20, 2018, 06:42:54 PM
The portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.

Myth.  Have driven it numerous times over the last 20 years and rarely see a single cop.

Your experiences with US-58 doesn’t make anyone else’s less valid or a “myth”. I drove US-58 between Emporia and I-64 as recently as last October and it was heavily patrolled. Emporia itself wasn’t as bad as it used to be, but the rest of the corridor between Emporia and Suffolk was a different story.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2018, 09:03:31 PM
Quote from: michaelbond
The portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.
This keeps coming up on this forum.  And while Emporia in particular has a reputation, my own considerable experience with the corridor is that it's more hype than reality.

Sure there's some cops, but no more than I've seen elsewhere (including North Carolina).

Including Maryland.  At least they no longer do "step out" traffic stops on the inner lane of Interstate highways, following one of their officers getting run over and killed while doing that.

I agree, some roadgeeks seem to glom onto certain issues, some of which are misconceptions and/or erroneous, and they keep streaming it.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Takumi on February 21, 2018, 12:18:34 PM
Quote from: michaelbond
The portion of US58 between Emporia and Suffolk is reason enough to drive an alternate route. Driven it plenty of times and never seen more cops in one area before.
This keeps coming up on this forum.  And while Emporia in particular has a reputation, my own considerable experience with the corridor is that it's more hype than reality.

Sure there's some cops, but no more than I've seen elsewhere (including North Carolina).

Including Maryland.  At least they no longer do "step out" traffic stops on the inner lane of Interstate highways, following one of their officers getting run over and killed while doing that.

I agree, some roadgeeks seem to glom onto certain issues, some of which are misconceptions and/or erroneous, and they keep streaming it.
I’ve seen far more patrolling in North Carolina in recent years than Virginia.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2018, 08:55:28 PM
Whether or not if Virginia/Chesapeake even builds there portion, I created a map showing generally what a freeway might look like from Cedar Rd to North Carolina along U.S. 17, if they ever come to do their portion of I-87.

In my view of it (on the map), interchanges would be located at Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, George Washington Hwy, and Scenic Pkwy. Access roads would also have to be created at certain points, especially between Scenic Pkwy and G.W. Hwy. All of this can be seen on the map.

Map - https://goo.gl/D5sqNg (https://goo.gl/D5sqNg)

This is just my viewpoint of it ever went through Virginia, nothing is official, and things will probably end up being different.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 09:07:54 PM
Whether or not if Virginia/Chesapeake even builds there portion, I created a map showing generally what a freeway might look like from Cedar Rd to North Carolina along U.S. 17, if they ever come to do their portion of I-87.
In my view of it (on the map), interchanges would be located at Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, George Washington Hwy, and Scenic Pkwy. Access roads would also have to be created at certain points, especially between Scenic Pkwy and G.W. Hwy. All of this can be seen on the map.
Map - https://goo.gl/D5sqNg (https://goo.gl/D5sqNg)
This is just my viewpoint of it ever went through Virginia, nothing is official, and things will probably end up being different.

The rancher that owns about 2,000 acres on the southern part of US-17, got the CTB to grant three breaks in the limited access right-of-way line and fence, so that he can get his farm equipment across the highway.  These would need to be eliminated with some scheme that could provide him decent grade separated access across the highway.

You can see them on Google Maps satellite view -- Number One Ditch, Number Two Ditch, and Number Three Ditch.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2018, 09:16:54 PM
Whether or not if Virginia/Chesapeake even builds there portion, I created a map showing generally what a freeway might look like from Cedar Rd to North Carolina along U.S. 17, if they ever come to do their portion of I-87.
In my view of it (on the map), interchanges would be located at Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, George Washington Hwy, and Scenic Pkwy. Access roads would also have to be created at certain points, especially between Scenic Pkwy and G.W. Hwy. All of this can be seen on the map.
Map - https://goo.gl/D5sqNg (https://goo.gl/D5sqNg)
This is just my viewpoint of it ever went through Virginia, nothing is official, and things will probably end up being different.

The rancher that owns about 2,000 acres on the southern part of US-17, got the CTB to grant three breaks in the limited access right-of-way line and fence, so that he can get his farm equipment across the highway.  These would need to be eliminated with some scheme that could provide him decent grade separated access across the highway.

You can see them on Google Maps satellite view -- Number One Ditch, Number Two Ditch, and Number Three Ditch.

Wouldn't an overpass at Ballahack, then to the trail, connect the east side to Number Three Ditch on the west side? Or would a new separation be needed near the state line
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 11:14:29 PM
The rancher that owns about 2,000 acres on the southern part of US-17, got the CTB to grant three breaks in the limited access right-of-way line and fence, so that he can get his farm equipment across the highway.  These would need to be eliminated with some scheme that could provide him decent grade separated access across the highway.
You can see them on Google Maps satellite view -- Number One Ditch, Number Two Ditch, and Number Three Ditch.
Wouldn't an overpass at Ballahack, then to the trail, connect the east side to Number Three Ditch on the west side? Or would a new separation be needed near the state line

That would have to be worked out with the landowner.  Presumably there was a good reason why he was granted three private at-grade intersections.  AADT would be very low, maybe 10 or less, but they are at-grade intersections nonetheless.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: michealbond on February 22, 2018, 01:07:21 PM
No myth about the Emporia area. It has the reputation for a reason. I've seen many cars pulled over on my many travels to and from Raleigh. I also lived in Northeastern NC for the first 20 years of my life and traveled to the Suffolk/Chesapeake/Norfolk/VA beach area countless times as well as the Emporia/Petersburg area on my way to Richmond or DC.

My overall experience has been exactly as the reputation suggests. I learned a long time ago not to speed at all through that entire area.

I honestly don't understand why people (Beltway in particular) are annoyed about this, especially when VA's portion (if it ever gets built) would likely be less than 30 miles of roadway.

I stand by my statement. It will be "easier" for people to drive I-87 between Raleigh & Norfolk on a 70mph non stop interstate than the 87/95/US 58 combo. Yes, there are lots of people that will always want the fastest route, no matter what. But simplicity for many people will beat out the time factor.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 01:30:48 PM
No myth about the Emporia area. It has the reputation for a reason. I've seen many cars pulled over on my many travels to and from Raleigh. I also lived in Northeastern NC for the first 20 years of my life and traveled to the Suffolk/Chesapeake/Norfolk/VA beach area countless times as well as the Emporia/Petersburg area on my way to Richmond or DC.
My overall experience has been exactly as the reputation suggests. I learned a long time ago not to speed at all through that entire area.
I honestly don't understand why people (Beltway in particular) are annoyed about this, especially when VA's portion (if it ever gets built) would likely be less than 30 miles of roadway.

Because some roadgeeks like to spin a lot of baloney about this.  Because it IS annoying.  Because I have driven it countless times myself.

I stand by my statement. It will be "easier" for people to drive I-87 between Raleigh & Norfolk on a 70mph non stop interstate than the 87/95/US 58 combo. Yes, there are lots of people that will always want the fastest route, no matter what. But simplicity for many people will beat out the time factor.

Baloney, any way you slice it. 

It will NOT be easier to drive 25 extra miles, it will not be 'simpler', when about half of the existing route is 70 mph, and when a variety of major improvements are planned on that route.  Especially for large trucks with their fuel costs.  I have said this repeatedly, and will say it again if/when someone posts something contrary.

"I-87" is a boondoggle.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: vdeane on February 22, 2018, 01:49:53 PM
The routing of I-87 goes way out of the way and will look very, very stupid on a map.  25 miles may not be much if you're driving 1000 miles, but if you're only going 150, it's certainly a lot.  Also keep in mind that truckers are MANDATED to take the shortest route in number of miles, because that's how they get paid.  The trucks will not be taking I-87.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Takumi on February 22, 2018, 04:39:03 PM
No myth about the Emporia area. It has the reputation for a reason. I've seen many cars pulled over on my many travels to and from Raleigh. I also lived in Northeastern NC for the first 20 years of my life and traveled to the Suffolk/Chesapeake/Norfolk/VA beach area countless times as well as the Emporia/Petersburg area on my way to Richmond or DC.

My overall experience has been exactly as the reputation suggests. I learned a long time ago not to speed at all through that entire area.

I honestly don't understand why people (Beltway in particular) are annoyed about this, especially when VA's portion (if it ever gets built) would likely be less than 30 miles of roadway.
Because there are just as many of us who have gone through that area countless times without ever seeing a car pulled over.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2018, 04:44:53 PM
From the I-95/US 64 interchange to I-64/US 17, US 17 is only 15 miles longer, not 25. Even though it may be slightly longer, it will have a full 70mph speed limit, making it more easier for people, like michealbond pointed out. Not to mention, there are plenty of interstates in the US that compete with a US route that may be slightly shorter, but the traffic still uses the interstate. Also, having a full interstate allows trucks and all traffic a generally safer route. No crossroads, driveways, etc. to worry about, just unobstructed freeway. Set your cruise to 70+mph, and you go all the way, whereas 95 requires getting off at Emporia, slowing through there, then to 60mph, then slowing through Suffolk. Also, traffic would avoid the High Rise Bridge corridor with this route, coming into Hampton Roads, which has numerous delays during peak hours.

Plus, what are the chances VDOT would be willing to divert money from other much needed projects to improve US 58 to interstate any time soon? Look at how US 460 went. NCDOT is in a much better position to upgrade US 17 than VDOT is to do 58, comparing their history with VDOT's. US 17 is a lot easier to upgrade, most of it is limited-access already, only a few interchanges needed here and there. Yes, US 58 is a major corridor that may work for now, but traffic can be heavy on 58, and there is a major need for an interstate from Norfolk to I-95 south and Raleigh, like there is I-64 from Norfolk to I-95 North and Richmond, especially as these areas continue growing. Economically, it ties Norfolk into the southern interstate system, and will also bring more traffic through northeast NC. It also opens up the opportunity to allow traffic to use US 13 going north, while that would definitely be longer (40-50 miles longer), it would allow them to avoid DC traffic, which we all know how that can be.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: vdeane on February 22, 2018, 07:36:40 PM
The distance from US 64 at I-95 to US 17 at the VA border, as the crow flies, is 92.36 miles.  The distance along NCDOT's proposed route is approximately 125 miles... so actually, we've underestimated it, since the difference is closer to 30-35 miles.  For destinations only about 90 miles apart.  That's a 33% increase.  Frankly, I wouldn't go with either US 58 or NCDOT's route.  I'd build a direct new terrain route.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Jordanes on February 22, 2018, 08:42:22 PM
Who knows if any of us will still be alive 20-30 years from now? Anything can happen.

Literally ANYthing is possible with Trump in the White House.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
The distance from US 64 at I-95 to US 17 at the VA border, as the crow flies, is 92.36 miles.  The distance along NCDOT's proposed route is approximately 125 miles... so actually, we've underestimated it, since the difference is closer to 30-35 miles.  For destinations only about 90 miles apart.  That's a 33% increase.  Frankly, I wouldn't go with either US 58 or NCDOT's route.  I'd build a direct new terrain route.

Raleigh-Norfolk on Google Maps it is 184 miles current versus 208 miles proposed.

The reason why they don't build a 'straight shot' route is because it would go thru very rural areas and would serve hardly any even very small towns.  That is why many Interstate corridors considerably deviate from a straight line.

"I-87" is not going to compete with the current route; by the earliest time they could build it (20+ years?) there will be a number of major upgrades built along those parts of I-95 and US-58.  If someone wants to suggest an Interstate route between Raleigh and Norfolk then they need to wait until they can come with something better than this foolishness.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2018, 09:43:14 PM
The distance from US 64 at I-95 to US 17 at the VA border, as the crow flies, is 92.36 miles.  The distance along NCDOT's proposed route is approximately 125 miles... so actually, we've underestimated it, since the difference is closer to 30-35 miles.  For destinations only about 90 miles apart.  That's a 33% increase.  Frankly, I wouldn't go with either US 58 or NCDOT's route.  I'd build a direct new terrain route.

Raleigh-Norfolk on Google Maps it is 184 miles current versus 208 miles proposed.

The reason why they don't build a 'straight shot' route is because it would go thru very rural areas and would serve hardly any even very small towns.  That is why many Interstate corridors considerably deviate from a straight line.

"I-87" is not going to compete with the current route; by the earliest time they could build it (20+ years?) there will be a number of major upgrades built along those parts of I-95 and US-58.  If someone wants to suggest an Interstate route between Raleigh and Norfolk then they need to wait until they can come with something better than this foolishness.
The distance from US 64 at I-95 to US 17 at the VA border, as the crow flies, is 92.36 miles.  The distance along NCDOT's proposed route is approximately 125 miles... so actually, we've underestimated it, since the difference is closer to 30-35 miles.  For destinations only about 90 miles apart.  That's a 33% increase.  Frankly, I wouldn't go with either US 58 or NCDOT's route.  I'd build a direct new terrain route.

Looking at it from Google Maps, US 64 at I-95 to I-64 at US 17 via 58 is 135 miles, whereas 17 is 150, which is a 15 mile difference. As for upgrades on either route, NCDOT has already funded a project to upgrade US 17 from VA to E-City bypass to interstate standards. Construction will start in approx 8-9 years. They also have funded a few interchanges and an overpass in Hertford, which will be constructed in about 5-7 years. Also, they are expressing interest in wanting to build a new location route between Hertford and Elizabeth City in the near future. And as time passes, I'm sure more plans & funding to upgrade US 17 down to Edenton, then a new location to Windsor, and eventually all the way down to Williamston will happen, especially as the NCDOT's new STIP comes out in a couple of years, where more will get funded. VDOT on the other hand, currently has no plans to upgrade US 58. Yes, a feasibility study for the route across the entire state is currently being studied, but based on prior studies from VDOT, it tends to take at least 15-20 years to bring actual construction to it, if money can even be acquired. The biggest project here in the past 20 years was 168, which ended up being tolled. No other long distance, big highways have happened since. Also, with the whole money situation, it brings even more wait until anything is done to 58. Once I-87 construction begins also, they'll most likely use that as an excuse not to majorly upgrade US 58 in the near future. They couldn't even receive $400 million to upgrade a small section of US 460, imagine how a whole US 58 new location or upgrade would cost. NCDOT is more willing to divert funds to I-87, as they have no current extreme-costing projects occurring, like VDOT does with High Rise and HRBT, which will be the main focus for the next 10 years.

I'll say once again, there are interstates that are slightly longer in distance than the opposing US/state route, but it ends up still being the fastest, the most convenient, and the most traveled on, which is what I feel I-87 will become when it's complete, despite the extra 10-15 miles.

As for building a new terrain route, it would've been interesting if they upgraded NC 11 to US 13 to Suffolk as the route, as it would be about the same mileage, and is on their statewide plan to make that a full freeway. It's going to be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out in the end.

NCDOT maps from the feasibility study of how it may be upgraded/new location built, in case anybody hasn't seen them - http://www.dailyadvance.com/.media/2/2017/09/25/fb1d4a8f-a524-48f9-b6dd-7716cdf09686.pdf
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
Raleigh-Norfolk on Google Maps it is 184 miles current versus 208 miles proposed.

Looking at it from Google Maps, US 64 at I-95 to I-64 at US 17 via 58 is 135 miles, whereas 17 is 150, which is a 15 mile difference.

Spurious comparison.  I-64/US-17 junction is 7 miles from downtown Norfolk, so that would subtract mileage from your route.

Going from center to center like I did is a better overall comparison.  24 miles difference.  The existing route is even more favorable for the western part of the metro such as the I-664 corridor.

The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, should be upgraded to full freeway standards within 10 years.  The 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will widened to 6 lanes with access management, starting in 2 years.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 07:26:39 AM
The reason why they don't build a 'straight shot' route is because it would go thru very rural areas and would serve hardly any even very small towns.

...or that the Army Corps of Engineers would frown upon a new route cutting through wetlands when there are existing upgradable routes available, as VDOT discovered when they blew millions on the US-460 toll road without any dirt being turned.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 07:35:40 AM
The reason why they don't build a 'straight shot' route is because it would go thru very rural areas and would serve hardly any even very small towns.
...or that the Army Corps of Engineers would frown upon a new route cutting through wetlands when there are existing upgradable routes available, as VDOT discovered when they blew millions on the US-460 toll road without any dirt being turned.

That wasn't at all the reason why the US-460 freeway project was stopped.  It was because of lying, dishonesty and a corrupt process of the McAullife administration who stopped the project.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 10:00:58 AM
The reason why they don't build a 'straight shot' route is because it would go thru very rural areas and would serve hardly any even very small towns.
...or that the Army Corps of Engineers would frown upon a new route cutting through wetlands when there are existing upgradable routes available, as VDOT discovered when they blew millions on the US-460 toll road without any dirt being turned.

That wasn't at all the reason why the US-460 freeway project was stopped.  It was because of lying, dishonesty and a corrupt process of the McAullife administration who stopped the project.

Care to elaborate? Because pulling the plug on a toll road that would’ve been on a completely new alignment paralleling the existing US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, that had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and would’ve carried little traffic since it would’ve been easily shunpiked, seemed like a good decision to me. The US-460 toll road would’ve been an even bigger boondoggle than I-87! :banghead:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 11:49:35 AM
The reason why they don't build a 'straight shot' route is because it would go thru very rural areas and would serve hardly any even very small towns.
...or that the Army Corps of Engineers would frown upon a new route cutting through wetlands when there are existing upgradable routes available, as VDOT discovered when they blew millions on the US-460 toll road without any dirt being turned.
That wasn't at all the reason why the US-460 freeway project was stopped.  It was because of lying, dishonesty and a corrupt process of the McAullife administration who stopped the project.
Care to elaborate? Because pulling the plug on a toll road that would’ve been on a completely new alignment paralleling the existing US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, that had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and would’ve carried little traffic since it would’ve been easily shunpiked, seemed like a good decision to me. The US-460 toll road would’ve been an even bigger boondoggle than I-87! :banghead:

That is part of the lies of the McAullife administration.

The project had a completed NEPA process, meaning an FHWA approved Final EIS and Record of Decision.  The ROD included comments by ACOE that they approved of the alignment.  The project contract was awarded.  When the McAullife administration came in they got their cronies in the Obama EPA to delay what would have been the routine final permits, that kept the project from entering construction.  Then they did a Supplemental EIS that somehow (!) came up with wetland acreage impact totals that were 4 times the figure in the Final EIS that had been approved a couple years before.  Then they killed the project on the grounds that the wetland impacts were "too high".  This was after $240 million was spent since the contract award on design-build and what I would term "rapid and intense mobilization", and this money was permanently lost to the state.  The $1.4 billion contract for 49 miles of 4-lane Interstate-caliber freeway works out to about $28 million per mile, and they will never see a deal that good again.

An Interstate-caliber highway between the Richmond-Petersburg area and South Hampton Roads would have gotten plenty usage, especially in the future, and it would have either relieved traffic on I-64 or at least forestalled growth on I-64.  It would have had a $3.70 toll which I would have found very reasonable and would have made it the ideal route for those points.  It would have been completed in 2016.  Preventing "shunpiking"  would have been easy, keep the old US-460 at 4 lanes in the towns and repaint the roadway in the rural areas as 2 lanes with full paved shoulders.  The Interstate route (I suggested either I-62 or I-264 extended) would have open road tolling and would have beat the old highway hands down.  (I am aware that the 6-lane US-58 between Suffolk and I-64, that Interstate upgrades are necessary).

So now we are stuck with a 4-lane undivided highway (except for about a dozen intersections that have turn lanes) with structurally flawed, bumpy (right lanes have concrete base that is 75+ years old) and worn out pavement that needs either total replacement or to be relegated to minor primary traffic volumes.  The pavement total replacement would cost at least $100 million and it would still be a substandard highway.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 23, 2018, 06:17:47 PM
Folks, if you want to discuss US 460, you're in the wrong forum.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 23, 2018, 07:04:17 PM
Raleigh-Norfolk on Google Maps it is 184 miles current versus 208 miles proposed.

Looking at it from Google Maps, US 64 at I-95 to I-64 at US 17 via 58 is 135 miles, whereas 17 is 150, which is a 15 mile difference.

Spurious comparison.  I-64/US-17 junction is 7 miles from downtown Norfolk, so that would subtract mileage from your route.

Going from center to center like I did is a better overall comparison.  24 miles difference.  The existing route is even more favorable for the western part of the metro such as the I-664 corridor.

The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, should be upgraded to full freeway standards within 10 years.  The 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will widened to 6 lanes with access management, starting in 2 years.

What I'm trying to say though, no extensive upgrades are happening. The bypass connectors will really be the only time-saving one, by a minute. The 6-lane management will turn the road into a slower speed limit, more traffic signals, and the US 58 to I-64 upgrades will simply help traffic flow better, and make it safer, but no speed increases (as far as I know), etc.

In the end, the projects (except for the bypass connector) will simply help traffic flow better, not speed anyone up (except for the bypass connector). If VDOT were to consider a full freeway from Suffolk to Emporia/South Hill, they would most likely use new location as an excuse to use tolls (except for existing bypasses), just like 460. Follow the $$$. Obviously, the wish is to have a freeway 58, 460, and 17/64 for no tolls, but obviously the only viable one when it comes to money is 17/64, which NCDOT is able to fund, which is why they're doing it. This interstate linkage is needed, and since VDOT can't do it, NCDOT decided to use this route instead since they could fund it. VDOT just doesn't have the money to create a freeway from Suffolk to Emporia, and if they did, it'd probably be tolled.

Interested for this to come out in September - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/us_58_arterial_management_plan.asp
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 08:52:08 PM
I-64/US-17 junction is 7 miles from downtown Norfolk, so that would subtract mileage from your route.
Going from center to center like I did is a better overall comparison.  24 miles difference.  The existing route is even more favorable for the western part of the metro such as the I-664 corridor.
The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, should be upgraded to full freeway standards within 10 years.  The 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will widened to 6 lanes with access management, starting in 2 years.
What I'm trying to say though, no extensive upgrades are happening. The bypass connectors will really be the only time-saving one, by a minute. The 6-lane management will turn the road into a slower speed limit, more traffic signals, and the US 58 to I-64 upgrades will simply help traffic flow better, and make it safer, but no speed increases (as far as I know), etc.

The 6-lane access management project will not reduce the speed limit or create more traffic signals, it will considerably improve traffic flow.

Given 20 years there will surely be major upgrades.  Given the modest traffic volumes and the high-type design of the current highway, the average end-to-end speed is not much less than that of an Interstate highway.

Current VA law allows any limited access highway the possibility of a 70 mph speed limit.  The bypasses are all limited access.  A half year before the 1973 NMSL, a 65 mph possible maximum was approved for 4-lane divided nonlimited-access highways, which the NMSL canceled before any went into effect.  No reason why it could not be approved again.  (And don't give me this garbage that it would "reduce the ticket revenue").
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 08:54:08 PM
Folks, if you want to discuss US 460, you're in the wrong forum.

Agreed.  I will post it in the appropriate thread that already exists. 

I have been waiting for the opportunity!   :pan:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.

It would have been smart for Virginia to develop a freeway along US 58, but it's a lot tougher to start doing that now. In the meanwhile North Carolina developed US 64 as a freeway all the way from Raleigh to Williamston.

I don't think there was ever a real plan for a statewide freeway network in NC; there was just a feeling that if we need to upgrade a crummy highway, we might as well build a freeway. This impulse has served the state well.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 12:11:45 PM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.

Virginia has over 450 miles of limited access town and city bypasses on the 4-lane arterial highway system.  Add-em-up.   Also a number of major metropolitan non-Interstate freeways such as VA-288, VA-150, VA-76, VA-895, VA-168, VA-164, VA-267 and VA-28.  Different ways of distributing the mileage, but it is there in quantity nonetheless.

N.C. is a rapid-population-growth state, 20-22% per decade over the last 30 years.  The national average is about 12%.  Virginia has been about 14% which is above average.  N.C. far exceeds that and they really need their level of highway construction, they would be choking otherwise.

N.C.'s major central cities lack rivers, which simplifies road needs.  Take a look at the James River, the Potomac River, the Elizabeth River, the Hampton Roads estuary, and Chesapeake Bay and look at the large number of major bridges and tunnels that have been needed there.  More are planned in the near future.  Then get back with me about N.C.'s highway system that is boring in comparison.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 04:13:52 PM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.

Virginia has over 450 miles of limited access town and city bypasses on the 4-lane arterial highway system.  Add-em-up.   Also a number of major metropolitan non-Interstate freeways such as VA-288, VA-150, VA-76, VA-895, VA-168, VA-164, VA-267 and VA-28.  Different ways of distributing the mileage, but it is there in quantity nonetheless.

N.C. is a rapid-population-growth state, 20-22% per decade over the last 30 years.  The national average is about 12%.  Virginia has been about 14% which is above average.  N.C. far exceeds that and they really need their level of highway construction, they would be choking otherwise.

N.C.'s major central cities lack rivers, which simplifies road needs.  Take a look at the James River, the Potomac River, the Elizabeth River, the Hampton Roads estuary, and Chesapeake Bay and look at the large number of major bridges and tunnels that have been needed there.  More are planned in the near future.  Then get back with me about N.C.'s highway system that is boring in comparison.

That's the whole point here, you're contradicting yourself now. North Carolina is in a much better position to build this interstate than Virginia is along 58. VDOT is mainly concerned in widening urban Hampton Roads interstates/highways/roads & major water crossings over the next 10-15 years. The entire US 58 corridor to 95 and Emporia is in the Hampton Roads district which is where a lot of the funds there are being prioritized in the urban freeways/roads, the water crossings, etc, not to create some new rural freeway to Emporia that wouldn't have much significance to the flow of traffic, like urban HR, or another example is the US 460 bypass of Windsor which also get denied cause of costs of $400 million, and again, lack of significance to the flow of traffic compared to HR. Imagine what a full 58 freeway would cost. If 58 ever did get an upgrade, it wouldn't be for another 10-20+ years after all of urban Hampton Roads is funded, and enough can be saved for an entire 58 freeway.

On the other hand, NCDOT has an entire land route, and so does VDOT's portion, which is much more feasible to upgrade, as there's no big water crossings upgrades like Hampton Roads NCDOT has to deal with. Division 1 also does not have any major urban areas to deal with, along with no existing interstates, no water crossings, no major traffic issues to deal with, which puts them in the better position to build a new freeway all the way through. The Elizabeth City also has a military base which lacks any connection to the interstate system. Also, all the towns on the I-87 corridor are all in support, whereas a 58 freeway might have some opposition, especially near Emporia. So look at it this way - 17 will get done before any full 58 freeway is complete, and 17 is also more feasible, cost effective, and reasonable. So this is why the routing of I-87 is the way it is.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 04:18:26 PM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.

It would have been smart for Virginia to develop a freeway along US 58, but it's a lot tougher to start doing that now. In the meanwhile North Carolina developed US 64 as a freeway all the way from Raleigh to Williamston.

I don't think there was ever a real plan for a statewide freeway network in NC; there was just a feeling that if we need to upgrade a crummy highway, we might as well build a freeway. This impulse has served the state well.

Good portions of U.S. 220 were also freeway before turned into I-73/74.

This is North Carolina's proposed projects which went through the STIP for the next 10 years. Many of them didn't receive funding, though it gives you an idea of what they want in 20+ years down the line. http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=2b885d0f163b4c34a831c65010fd5703
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
That's the whole point here, you're contradicting yourself now. North Carolina is in a much better position to build this interstate than Virginia is along 58.

And I have posted ad infinitum why the long circuitous route east of I-95 along US-64 and US-17, is not suited for an Interstate highway when a capable 4-lane interregional highway already exists, and no cities exist along that route other than at each end and already well connected.

If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
That's the whole point here, you're contradicting yourself now. North Carolina is in a much better position to build this interstate than Virginia is along 58.

And I have posted ad infinitum why the long circuitous route east of I-95 along US-64 and US-17, is not suited for an Interstate highway when a capable 4-lane interregional highway already exists, and no cities exist along that route other than at each end and already well connected.

If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.

The statement "no cities exist along along that route" is false. U.S. 64/U.S. 17 from Raleigh to Norfolk have cities of Nashville, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City. There's also lots of towns along the route such as Knightdale, Zebulon, Spring Hope, Momeyer, Tarboro, Princeville, Robersonville, Everetts, Williamston, Windsor, Edenton, Hertford, and Winfall. It is a route filled with lots of other communities as well, many towns, and a few cities. It has major growth opportunities. As for time and miles, there are a few bypasses for US 17 that would shave off some time & miles, such as the talked about Williamston north bypass, and also a southern Windsor which would also straight shot to the Windsor bypass, as opposed to the existing arc around today.

On the other hand, U.S. 58 has the cities of Suffolk and Franklin, and the towns of Courtland and Capron. Your statement more goes for 58. Less growth opportunities on that corridor.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 06:54:32 PM

If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:56:40 PM

If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.

I think I-87 is meant for both really, it not only bring the eastern cities/towns into the interstate system, also economic growth, and just to provide an interstate between these two thriving areas.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 24, 2018, 07:29:44 PM
Wonder if at the I-95/US-64(Future I-87) interchange near Rocky Mount NCDOT will post Norfolk as a control city in order to try and divert as much traffic as possible from the popular and shorter I-95/US-58 route.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 07:41:34 PM
Wonder if at the I-95/US-64(Future I-87) interchange near Rocky Mount NCDOT will post Norfolk as a control city in order to try and divert as much traffic as possible from the popular and shorter I-95/US-58 route.

Most likely, as Norfolk will probably be added to most signage northbound I-87. Also going north at the 95 split off, a new overhead saying "I-87 North Norfolk, Elizabeth City" should be added.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 07:42:34 PM
The statement "no cities exist along along that route" is false. U.S. 64/U.S. 17 from Raleigh to Norfolk have cities of Nashville, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City. There's also lots of towns along the route such as Knightdale, Zebulon, Spring Hope, Momeyer, Tarboro, Princeville, Robersonville, Everetts, Williamston, Windsor, Edenton, Hertford, and Winfall. It is a route filled with lots of other communities as well, many towns, and a few cities.

Nashville is on Future I-495.  Rocky Mount is on I-95 and the current route.  If Elizabeth City is incorporated as a city then it is a very small city.  East of Rocky Mount it is a very rural corridor that is well served by the existing 4-lane interregional highway.  The 4-lane interregional highway concept was made for a corridor like that.  An Interstate highway would be wasteful.

It has major growth opportunities. As for time and miles, there are a few bypasses for US 17 that would shave off some time & miles, such as the talked about Williamston north bypass, and also a southern Windsor which would also straight shot to the Windsor bypass, as opposed to the existing arc around today.

Very little if any per satellite views.

On the other hand, U.S. 58 has the cities of Suffolk and Franklin, and the towns of Courtland and Capron. Your statement more goes for 58. Less growth opportunities on that corridor.

I am not advocating an Interstate route along US-58, so your comment is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 07:44:02 PM
Wonder if at the I-95/US-64(Future I-87) interchange near Rocky Mount NCDOT will post Norfolk as a control city in order to try and divert as much traffic as possible from the popular and shorter I-95/US-58 route.
Most likely, as Norfolk will probably be added to most signage northbound I-87. Also going north at the 95 split off, a new overhead saying "I-87 North Norfolk, Elizabeth City" should be added.

You have a good spyglass, looking 30+ years into the future.   :hmmm:
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 07:49:40 PM
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.

There was some absurdity to my statement.  You are not going to feasibly connect two cities with an Interstate highway when a better route already exists. 

Northeastern North Carolina is already tied to the central part of the state via a 4-lane interregional highway (US-64 and US-17).
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.

There was some absurdity to my statement.  You are not going to feasibly connect two cities with an Interstate highway when a better route already exists. 

Northeastern North Carolina is already tied to the central part of the state via a 4-lane interregional highway (US-64 and US-17).

4 lane highways exist all over, but what do most people prefer driving, 4 lane divided highways, or interstates? One example is from Norfolk to Bristol, I do a route on Google Maps and it tells me to take I-64 to I-81 which is 417 miles. US 58 is 387 miles, but it still routes me on the faster route. Interstates bring higher speeds, much quicker movements in and out of cities/towns, more businesses along the router, etc. That's the whole point for this thing.

The statement "no cities exist along along that route" is false. U.S. 64/U.S. 17 from Raleigh to Norfolk have cities of Nashville, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City. There's also lots of towns along the route such as Knightdale, Zebulon, Spring Hope, Momeyer, Tarboro, Princeville, Robersonville, Everetts, Williamston, Windsor, Edenton, Hertford, and Winfall. It is a route filled with lots of other communities as well, many towns, and a few cities.

Nashville is on Future I-495.  Rocky Mount is on I-95 and the current route.  If Elizabeth City is incorporated as a city then it is a very small city.  East of Rocky Mount it is a very rural corridor that is well served by the existing 4-lane interregional highway.  The 4-lane interregional highway concept was made for a corridor like that.  An Interstate highway would be wasteful.

Rocky Mount is on the east side of I-95, not part of the old 495, and Elizabeth City is an actively growing city, along with the other larger towns on 17. I do think 58 is the faster route right now, and yes my opinion is that it should become a freeway/interstate. But the fact is, VDOT doesn't have any large improvements planned for the corridor except around Suffolk, and until any 58 freeway is made, I-87 will be most likely faster when it's completed, bring a higher speed route to US 17, and will grow eastern NC alot. Another aspect is it will tie Elizabeth City into Hampton Roads better with the interstate between the two, and two new industry parks/mega sites planned near there.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 08:54:10 PM
4 lane highways exist all over, but what do most people prefer driving, 4 lane divided highways, or interstates?

The 4-lane interregional highway class fulfills a valuable role in intra-state highways that supplement the Interstate system, and provide connectivity to smaller towns and cities that are not on the Interstate system.  More than a 2-lane highway but less than a freeway.

One example is from Norfolk to Bristol, I do a route on Google Maps and it tells me to take I-64 to I-81 which is 417 miles. US 58 is 387 miles, but it still routes me on the faster route. Interstates bring higher speeds, much quicker movements in and out of cities/towns, more businesses along the router, etc. That's the whole point for this thing.

Of course not.  Bad comparison.  US-58 still has some long 2-lane sections between I-77 and Stuart, that really slow things down, and can handle only low volumes.  The distance difference is a much smaller percentage than with so-called I-87.

I do think 58 is the faster route right now, and yes my opinion is that it should become a freeway/interstate. But the fact is, VDOT doesn't have any large improvements planned for the corridor except around Suffolk, and until any 58 freeway is made, I-87 will be most likely faster when it's completed, bring a higher speed route to US 17,

Already refuted, several times, this is getting tiresome.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 09:54:24 PM

Rocky Mount is on the east side of I-95, not part of the old 495, and Elizabeth City is an actively growing city, along with the other larger towns on 17. I do think 58 is the faster route right now, and yes my opinion is that it should become a freeway/interstate. But the fact is, VDOT doesn't have any large improvements planned for the corridor except around Suffolk, and until any 58 freeway is made, I-87 will be most likely faster when it's completed, bring a higher speed route to US 17, and will grow eastern NC alot. Another aspect is it will tie Elizabeth City into Hampton Roads better with the interstate between the two, and two new industry parks/mega sites planned near there.

Let's try this a different way.  Right now Google says it is 2 hr 41 min from the Raleigh Beltway to Port Norfolk using 95/58.  Google also shows it is 203 miles if I use 64/17 to Port Norfolk.  I doubt I-87 will be appreciably shorter than this.  In order to cover the 203 miles in 2 hr 41 min I would have to average 76 mph.  This would be quite a feat given the speed limit the last 10 miles or more in the Norfolk area will not be 70.  So count me with the crowd that says I-87 will not be faster.

And in case folks are skeptical that VDOT is looking to improve US 58 from Emporia to Suffolk, VDOT is already formally studying the entire corridor:  http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/us_58_arterial_management_plan.asp

The remaining Courtland stoplight will be gone by the end of the year (new interchange) and ROW is underway for the west Suffolk improvements noted in this thread.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: LM117 on February 24, 2018, 09:57:02 PM
However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.

It was also designed to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. That way, they could advertise to businesses that the region has an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast.

If there was ever any proof of that very reason, I got it in 2016 when NC’s Congressional delegation introduced the Eastern NC Gateway Act in Congress. The bill would’ve designated the NC-11/US-13 corridor between Kinston and Bethel a High Priority Corridor and future interstate. Obviously the bill didn’t get anywhere since it was introduced shortly before the 2016 elections, but the state hasn’t given up on it. The Greenville Southwest Bypass that’s currently under construction is being built to interstate standards and NCDOT has plans to upgrade NC-11 to interstate standards between the SW Bypass and the future interchange with the Harvey Parkway just north of Kinston.

https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Greenville%20hwy.pdf (https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Greenville%20hwy.pdf)

The NC-11 upgrade project was included in NCDOT’s 2018-2027 STIP. It can be found on page 128, Project R-5815.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
It was also designed to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. That way, they could advertise to businesses that the region has an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast.

But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
It was also designed to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. That way, they could advertise to businesses that the region has an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast.

But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.

That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:34:41 PM
But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.

Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway.  Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:55:16 PM
But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.

Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway.  Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.

Interstates need to prioritized for major routes, such as I-42, and smaller ones like I-87 should be held off or done in small parts. Four-lane highways should get smaller projects done such as access control for smaller rural intersections, and larger ones with interchanges to allow higher speeds. Look at Texas, they have regular four-lane rural highways, non freeway with 75mph speed limits. More of these projects should be done and 65mph (70 should be reserved for freeways) speed limits should be allowed on 4-lane partial-control of access freeways. Cheaper, and gets the job done.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sparker on February 25, 2018, 03:22:29 AM
I'm seeing the term 4-lane interregional highway tossed about pretty freely in this thread; but except for in the upper Midwest (particularly IA & WI but with some presence in MN, MO, and NE, along with the [gag] MSR 110/CKC concept), where it seems to indicate a particular design idiom, the term is broad enough to encompass everything from signaled arterials to quasi-Interstate-grade freeways.   What characterizes such a facility seems to largely depend on the jurisdiction; the full-freeway US 64 portion of future I-87 seems to typify NC's approach, while in VA US 58 adheres to lesser standards (largely due to age) while maintaining a divided status.  VA (and SC for that matter) also features quite a few "twinned" 4-lane facilities (VA: US 29, SC: SC 151) where much if not all of the road consists of an original 2-lane alignment with a 2nd parallel carriageway constructed later, usually with full public & private access.  While some may quibble with new Interstate development, the fact remains that those facilities are at least consistent as to design and access criteria (the driver knows what he or she is getting -- the Surekill and BQE anomalies notwithstanding!).  I googled up "4-lane interregional highway" just to see if the term was in common usage and -- guess what -- the few references cited circled right back to this forum -- with particular reference back to the later posts in this very thread!  Since the actual characteristics of the individual examples of this "category" of highway seem to vary widely by jurisdiction, it seems somewhat presumptuous to assert a broad claim that facilities so described generally provide service levels approximating if not equaling those of Interstate or Interstate-grade routes.  Perhaps the raw capacities may be similar, but toss in the safety aspect endemic to limited access as well as the potential for inefficiencies due to periodic signalization, dodging cross traffic (with special mention given to farm equipment -- I personally have had more than a few close calls!), and the occasional speed trap, and the comparisons fall by the wayside.  I'd have little or no trouble accepting a classification such as this -- even if it seems cobbled up for comparative purposes -- if indeed there was some consistency (a facility similar to the Avenue of the Saints, even incomplete, would satisfy that definition) regarding what is encountered "on the ground".   
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 08:16:29 AM
I'm seeing the term 4-lane interregional highway tossed about pretty freely in this thread;

A term that I have often used.  If you don't like that, how about 4-lane rural arterial highway?  4-lane intra-state highway?  Those have seen official usage.

A 4-lane highway long distance route that has town bypasses and supplements the Interstate system.  Carries substantial volumes of long-distance traffic and large truck traffic, but generally less than that of an Interstate route.

but except for in the upper Midwest (particularly IA & WI but with some presence in MN, MO, and NE, along with the [gag] MSR 110/CKC concept), where it seems to indicate a particular design idiom, the term is broad enough to encompass everything from signaled arterials to quasi-Interstate-grade freeways.   What characterizes such a facility seems to largely depend on the jurisdiction; the full-freeway US 64 portion of future I-87 seems to typify NC's approach,

Not really, many such NC highways have at-grade intersections and including nonlimited-access right-of-way.

The Interstate class has its own problems, some are freeways with 4 lanes (the minimum standard) but little or nothing else.  Things like rural routes with 4-foot medians and 10 feet of clear roadside, short accell-decell lanes, sharp curves, bad pavement, bad shoulders, etc.  The argument can be made that they should never have been allowed into the Interstate system.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2018, 02:45:40 PM
But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.

Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway.  Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk? It certainly happened along US 70 in eastern NC, which is why that road is being replaced by I-42.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 03:14:21 PM
But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.

Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway.  Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk? It certainly happened along US 70 in eastern NC, which is why that road is being replaced by I-42.

US 70 through Charlotte was upgraded to an interesting type of divided highway. There's still driveways where needed, but the big intersections got replaced with smaller interchanges for slower speed limits, definitely not for a rural route, but it serves its purpose in that urban area, and traffic flows freely on it at 45-55mph. US 29 in Charlottesville and US 58 in Suffolk are being widened to 6 lanes and being made an urban roadway, with no interchanges, just traffic signals (as far as I know). Now US 58 between I-664 and the Suffolk Bypass is being upgraded to interstate standards with a couple of interchanges, but that road already has limited driveways, 6 lanes, and 60mph speed limits. They are considering widening it to 8 lanes potentially, an interchange near the airport, and widening the shoulders to 10-12 feet on both sides to meet standards. Would be interesting to see a speed hike to 65mph, but I doubt it knowing VDOT.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 25, 2018, 03:23:37 PM
But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.

Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway.  Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at these intersections. Isn't something like this happening along US 29 in northern Virginia and north of Charlottesville? and along US 58 near Suffolk? It certainly happened along US 70 in eastern NC, which is why that road is being replaced by I-42.

Another good example is Elizabeth City. U.S. Route 17 Business through the city was the main route, and it got clogged with development, so they built a bypass, US 17 Bypass. Years later, and guess what? That route is now clogged. So in 2002, they decided to build a full freeway bypass that completely avoids the city. One of the reasons it was made limited-access is so there wouldn't be this issue. The old US 17 Bypass is now US 17, with the new bypass US 17 Bypass. Elizabeth City has 3 Route 17 routes as of today now.
Title: Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Post by: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 03:33:59 PM
"4-lane interregional highways" work fine until they don't. If they succeed in attracting development, then they become clogged with traffic and slowed by traffic signals. Selectively replacing intersections with interchanges in developed areas is very expensive because the high-value development tends to be concentrated precisely at