Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[Beltway]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[LM117]

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/

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.

[Beltway]

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/

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.

[LM117]

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/

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.

[sparker]

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/

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. 

[PColumbus73]

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

[WashuOtaku]

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.

[PColumbus73]

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[LM117]

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

[froggie]

^ THey violated their own policies in doing so, but yes they did.

[roadman65]

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.

[froggie]

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.

[NE2]

AASHTO didn't approve moving US 220 back to the surface road through Ellerbe and Norman, IIRC.

[sparker]

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

^ 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.   

[WashuOtaku]

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.   

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

[froggie]

@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.

[sparker]

@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.   

[Beltway]

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.   

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.

[Mapmikey]

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

[roadman65]

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.

[wdcrft63]

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.

[LM117]

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.

[roadman65]

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.