Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[Beltway]

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.

[froggie]

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.

I do know of at least one approved 1968 addition that is not on Kurumi's request list:  I-394 MN.

[Beltway]

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.
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.

[sparker]

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.
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.

   

[LM117]

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

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.

[sparker]

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.   

[Beltway]

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[Beltway]

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.

[froggie]

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.

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.

[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

[froggie]

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.

[Beltway]

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)."

[sparker]

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.     

[LM117]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[Beltway]

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.

[LM117]

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

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.

[sparker]

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!).       

[The Ghostbuster]

I have a feeling Williamston will be as far north or east as Interstate 87 South will ever go.

[Beltway]

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.

[LM117]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[sparker]

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!