News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

Started by LM117, July 14, 2016, 12:29:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

NJRoadfan

North Carolina is the undisputed king of redundant concurrences. The whole state has examples of multiplex madness.


hotdogPi

Quote from: 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.

I thought Maine was.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

sparker

Quote from: 1 on June 24, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
Quote from: 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.

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:

Mapmikey

Quote from: 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.

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

Georgia would get the blue ribbon...

LM117

Quote from: 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.

To their credit, they've been trying to move away from that. US-117, US-17 and US-220 are recent examples.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

The Nature Boy

Quote from: 1 on June 24, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
Quote from: 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.

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.

hotdogPi

Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 24, 2017, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 24, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
Quote from: 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.

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.)
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

froggie

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.

LM117

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

QuoteNew projects include:

Upgrade U.S. 17 to interstate standards from U.S. 17/158 north of Elizabeth City to the Virginia state line
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sparker

Quote from: 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

QuoteNew 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.

Mapmikey

Quote from: 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

QuoteNew 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

Finrod

Interesting that they're going to follow US 17 to the Virginia border instead of angling it northeast to meet Virginia SR 168.
Internet member since 1987.

Hate speech is a nonsense concept; the truth is hate speech to those that hate the truth.

People who use their free speech to try to silence others' free speech are dangerous fools.

LM117

Quote from: 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.

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.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

LM117

Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2017, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: 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

QuoteNew 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.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sparker

Quote from: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 07:48:50 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2017, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: 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

QuoteNew 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.   

plain

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.
Newark born, Richmond bred

sparker

Quote from: 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.

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"!

The Ghostbuster

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.

sparker

Quote from: 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.

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.

froggie

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...

Mapmikey

Quote from: 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...

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

NE2

Glencoe would need an overpass too for the house(s?) just east of the trail.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Beltway

Quote from: Mapmikey on June 30, 2017, 08:21:44 PM
Quote from: 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...
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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Mapmikey

Quote from: NE2 on June 30, 2017, 08:57:16 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

Mapmikey

Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2017, 09:55:53 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



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