News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Beltway

Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 05:41:46 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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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


The Ghostbuster

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.

sparker

Quote from: 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.

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:

The Nature Boy

Quote from: 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.

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.

sparker

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: 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.

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:     

LM117

Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 05:48:05 PMAs 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.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

LM117

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PMThe 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.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

Beltway

#307
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 09:37:14 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PMThe 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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

LM117

Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 09:37:14 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PMThe 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.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

Mapmikey

Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 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

Beltway

#310
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Beltway

Quote from: Mapmikey on September 07, 2017, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

LM117

Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 02:37:28 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 01:11:42 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

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

Beltway

#313
Quote from: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 06:33:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 02:37:28 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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

roadman65

Quote from: 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.
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.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Beltway

#315
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2017, 03:50:16 AM
Quote from: 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.
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:

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

hotdogPi

Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 08:44:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2017, 03:50:16 AM
Quote from: 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.
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.
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.

Beltway

Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2017, 08:48:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 08:44:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2017, 03:50:16 AM
Quote from: 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.
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?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

roadman65

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.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Beltway

Quote from: 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.

What about them?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

froggie

I think their point, Scott, is that you're over-exaggerating the confusion potential.

LM117

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

plain

Has there been any maps put out yet showing the potential routings northeast of Williamston?
Newark born, Richmond bred

froggie

I don't think it's gotten to that level of study yet.

Beltway

Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2017, 12:31:55 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:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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



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.