Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[sparker]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.
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.

[The Ghostbuster]

It may be a boondoggle, but unfortunately, it is a reality.

[BrianP]

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.

[Beltway]

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).

[LM117]

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.

[LM117]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[sparker]

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!   

[froggie]

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.

[plain]

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.

[Roadsguy]

Does NCDOT still build new expressways with narrow shoulders whenever possible?

[WashuOtaku]

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.

[Beltway]

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?

[sparker]

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.   

[Beltway]

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.

[michealbond]

http://www.reflector.com/News/2017/10/03/Officials-consider-bond-for-quicker-I-87.html

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."

[froggie]

From the article:

"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...

[LM117]

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.

[Beltway]

From the article:

"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.

[sparker]

From the article:

"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!               

[LM117]

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.

[Beltway]

<< 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).

[sparker]

<< 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.