Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[Strider]

The billion $ projects US 121 say hello...

Complete waste of money, IMO. I can think of several projects in SW VA that the money is better spent on. Widening I-81, finishing the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, I-73, actually building a US-460/N. Main St interchange in Blacksburg instead of taking the cheap way out...

I agree with this.

[VTGoose]

Provision of full paved shoulders, long left-turn and right-turn lanes, access management improvements, and selected spot-reconstructions, are some of the basic but helpful improvements that could be performed, and for maybe 1 or 2% of the cost of the new Interstate highway.

OK, no problem with those projects, which would improve the existing highway in its present location. But that won't satisfy the crowd that wants a full-on interstate between I-81 and North Carolina and I don't see that happening even in my (adult) kids' lifetimes.

Bruce in Blacksburg

[Beltway]

Provision of full paved shoulders, long left-turn and right-turn lanes, access management improvements, and selected spot-reconstructions, are some of the basic but helpful improvements that could be performed, and for maybe 1 or 2% of the cost of the new Interstate highway.

OK, no problem with those projects, which would improve the existing highway in its present location. But that won't satisfy the crowd that wants a full-on interstate between I-81 and North Carolina and I don't see that happening even in my (adult) kids' lifetimes.
Bruce in Blacksburg

Conceptually I would definitely like to see an Interstate highway built in that corridor, and see the corridor completed south to I-95 in South Carolina as has been studied. 

AADTs on US-220 south of Martinsville are in the 12,000 range, between there and Rocky Mount in the 16,000 range, and between there and the Blue Ridge Parkway in the 24,000 range, and truck percentages in the 10+% range.  Those are hefty numbers compared to rural predecessors to the original Interstate system.  The traffic engineering warrants for an Interstate highway exist today.

If rural Interstate construction was still in the $10 million per mile range like it was not that many years ago, I would be strongly advocating building it.  Nevertheless, there is that $4 billion figure that I am sure some of the posters are tired of seeing me post...

[wdcrft63]

Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.

[Strider]

Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.

Exactly. Split into small segments. It is much cheaper that way. NC line to US 58 is the best segment to start.


Either way, I-87 is going to get built before I-73 ever does because of course it connects to Hampton Roads.

[VTGoose]

Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.

OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?

[Beltway]

Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.

OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?

Temporary tie-ins would be an issue anywhere on the corridor, for cost as well as feasibility.  A Ridgeway bypass segment would cost probably $60 to $80 million and for no real independent benefit.

The one independent segment that would make sense to build soon would be a 2 or 3 mile extension from the south end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Highway).  It would pass thru and address a congested area and would be expensive.

[wdcrft63]

Think smaller, folks. How much would it cost to build the Ridgeway bypass section (NC line to US 58)? That seems like a good place to start building. Or, at the other end, how about the suburban segments just south of Roanoke? The all-or-nothing discussion isn't going anywhere.

OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?

Arkansas has a somewhat similar problem with the I-49 Bella Vista Bypass in the Ozarks. The difference is, they really want to build the road. So they've been hacking at it a little bit at a time, building segments initially with 2 lanes. It's taking a pretty long time, but eventually they'll get it done.

[plain]

The one independent segment that would make sense to build soon would be a 2 or 3 mile extension from the south end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Highway).  It would pass thru and address a congested area and would be expensive.

Agreed.. matter of fact, IF Virginia ever decides to build its segment, it should be built starting at the northern end going southward.

[Beltway]

OK, but how do you build a segment on a new right of way far separated from the existing highway, then tie that section into the old road? That may work south of Martinsville but does traffic support the need vs. the traffic coming out of Roanoke?

Arkansas has a somewhat similar problem with the I-49 Bella Vista Bypass in the Ozarks. The difference is, they really want to build the road. So they've been hacking at it a little bit at a time, building segments initially with 2 lanes. It's taking a pretty long time, but eventually they'll get it done.

They built part of it in the original Interstate system as I-540, relatively little so far as I-49, about 180 miles between Texarkana and Fort Smith that hasn't even been touched and the existing road is only 2 lanes.  When... 2100?

[Beltway]

The one independent segment that would make sense to build soon would be a 2 or 3 mile extension from the south end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Highway).  It would pass thru and address a congested area and would be expensive.

Agreed.. matter of fact, IF Virginia ever decides to build its segment, it should be built starting at the northern end going southward.

Actually the 'northern end' would be the upgrade of I-581 and the Southwest Expressway, probably to 8 lanes.  But I will grant that the segment I outlined above has standalone utility.

Segments going south while they don't have to be built at exactly the same time, there does need to be a flow of southward progression in a reasonable timeframe, say all contracts let within 3 to 5 years.

Such as when I-77 was built in Virginia, the segments north of I-81 opened from 1972 to 1975; the segments south of I-81 opened from 1977 to 1979.  Of course it is very hard to compare to today, as the average construction cost per mile of I-77 was $3 million back then.

[NJRoadfan]

Forgot to add, NCDOT finally finished adding exit numbers along US-64 (particularly on the Nashville bypass) from I-440 to at least I-95 (if not beyond). Seems kinda pointless though since they will eventually be changed to I-87's mileposts vs. US-64's.

[bob7374]

Forgot to add, NCDOT finally finished adding exit numbers along US-64 (particularly on the Nashville bypass) from I-440 to at least I-95 (if not beyond). Seems kinda pointless though since they will eventually be changed to I-87's mileposts vs. US-64's.

Curious that NCDOT did not do what they did with US 74 east of I-95. There they put up I-74 mileposts and placed I-74 exit numbers for the US 74 exits in anticipation of future construction. Guess the US 64 contract was designed before the I-87 designation and no one considered delaying the project even though the numbers will be changed in the future.

[roadman65]

Forgot to add, NCDOT finally finished adding exit numbers along US-64 (particularly on the Nashville bypass) from I-440 to at least I-95 (if not beyond). Seems kinda pointless though since they will eventually be changed to I-87's mileposts vs. US-64's.

Traditionally, yes Interstate exits should not use a US route that is with them, but keep in mind I-17 in AZ does not use its own exit numbers.  I-515 in NV, which uses US 95's mileage.   Then I-70 in IL that continues another interstate's mileage scheme.

Even if I-87 uses US 64's scheme that adds hundreds of miles to it, it really does not matter as long as its consistent to the end.

Being that said I would not petition for it as it should be zero from I-40 as I assume its concurrent with I-440 unlike MS not making I-22 concurrent with I-269 despite TN having no interest in building their part of the Memphis to Birmingham freeway.  But if NCDOT did not care about formalities as Arizona or Nevada do, for us we should not worry too much about it other than just simply pointing the fact out as discussion.

[hotdogPi]

Then I-70 in IL that continues another interstate's mileage scheme.

What is unusual about I-70 in Illinois? The exit numbers seem perfectly normal, looking at the Wikipedia article on I-70 in Illinois.

[roadman65]

Not really as they continue I-270's scheme not I-55's as originally (before the Stan Musial Bridge that is) used I-55's zero point on the Poplar Street Bridge.  There is a 2 mile difference, not seen unless you look close enough.

The point was you cannot be precise, so if NCDOT wants to use US 64's numbering than that would not be so strange.

[sparker]

The likely outcome will be that I-87 will have its own exit numbers starting with "0" at the I-40/440 junction and continuing on until the nascent Interstate turns north onto US 17 at Williamston.  US 64's numbering will "phantom" over I-87 for the length of the multiplex and resume east of US 17, so the exit numbers on the freeway section west of Columbia won't need to be changed.  I can't imaging NCDOT wanting to have I-87 change its exit number pattern once on US 17, so it is likely that the whole corridor will have a unique exit list.  But I'd also bet that any exit number change on US 64 won't be implemented until most if not all of the US 17 portion of I-87 is in place, even if the US 64 E-W segment is co-signed as I-87 prior to the entire corridor's completion.

[roadman65]

Yes it will have its own exit numbers.  But that was not the point!  I just stated that exit numbers do not have to conform to the standards.

Someone said that the exit numbers needed to be changed again once all is in place. I just said its not really that necessary, not saying that they will not change them.

You bring up an interesting point, as far as US 17 I imagine that it will not change them to match its mileposts for sure, but if there ever was someone who thought along the line that the people in Arizona was thinking when numbering I-17 (which I would hope is rare) there is no law stopping them.

I am not in favor of them using US 64 or US 17's mileage, but in favor of all using the actual interstate including I-17.

[sparker]

Yes it will have its own exit numbers.  But that was not the point!  I just stated that exit numbers do not have to conform to the standards.

Someone said that the exit numbers needed to be changed again once all is in place. I just said its not really that necessary, not saying that they will not change them.

You bring up an interesting point, as far as US 17 I imagine that it will not change them to match its mileposts for sure, but if there ever was someone who thought along the line that the people in Arizona was thinking when numbering I-17 (which I would hope is rare) there is no law stopping them.

I am not in favor of them using US 64 or US 17's mileage, but in favor of all using the actual interstate including I-17.

Arizona's milepost/exit system is indeed weird; why it's persisted for so many decades is beyond me (I guess there haven't been too many complaints about it -- and you can calculate mileage using the supplied numbers).  And the only Interstate involved within that system is I-17; all the rest are calculated from the point where they enter the state.  And you're right; it seems like the mileage system in AZ is a matter of administrative law formulated within AZDOT bylaws -- maybe I'm mistaken, but it doesn't seem like an issue normally tackled by the state legislature but rather worked out in the bowels of the state highway department. 

But to the matter at hand: it's probable that NC will retain the existing mileposts and exit numbering along the I-87 corridor until such time as the corridor is substantially completed.  It's likely that since the US 64 freeway has been in place for a couple of decades or more that businesses along the way make written or media advertising reference to the closest exit; it would probably be prudent to leave matters as they are as long as possible -- and trot out the revised exit numbers as part of the "completion rituals" of the full corridor.   

[roadman65]

I think that would be fair to wait till all is done.  Right now the businesses are using the existing ones and that could create a confusion situation.

Yes AZ is weird, but also NY has the same situation with I-87 and three schemes, but no one complains about it as most New Yorkers refer to I-87 by the names, in which in their minds its three separate roads so the numbers do not seem redundant.   

Yes, I-87 is not hard to calculate and so is I-515 in Vegas.  Plus I-69 in IN north of Indy as it starts with an even 200 and goes north from there.   Of course, INDOT is not accurate with the mileage from the original southern terminus being close to 200 miles from Kentucky either, but I am sure that no one ever would calculate though the discrepancy except maybe a few members here, with one who might already have written INDOT and gave them a lesson in FHWA standards, but really its good as long as you have a system that works and close to accurate numbers.

Heck the Garden State Parkway even with its exit numbers being a mile or so off (i.e MP 136 at Exit 135, MP 124 being south of Exit 123, and MP 140 at Exit 138 on the CR 509 overpass) there its not that big a deal either.   However, until the US 17 upgrade gets completed the current US 64 part is fine IMO for a good reference in exits.

[NJRoadfan]

The thing is, there were no exit numbers on US-64 until the past year in many places.

[bob7374]

The likely outcome will be that I-87 will have its own exit numbers starting with "0" at the I-40/440 junction and continuing on until the nascent Interstate turns north onto US 17 at Williamston.  US 64's numbering will "phantom" over I-87 for the length of the multiplex and resume east of US 17, so the exit numbers on the freeway section west of Columbia won't need to be changed.  I can't imaging NCDOT wanting to have I-87 change its exit number pattern once on US 17, so it is likely that the whole corridor will have a unique exit list.  But I'd also bet that any exit number change on US 64 won't be implemented until most if not all of the US 17 portion of I-87 is in place, even if the US 64 E-W segment is co-signed as I-87 prior to the entire corridor's completion.

NCDOT is already planning to change the exit numbers along US 64/264 to I-87 numbers when the new overhead signage is put up sometime this year. Here are signage plans for the Business 64 exit in Wendell at the east end of the Knightdale Bypass:


Other sign plans can be found on my Future I-87 in NC website:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut87.html

[roadman65]

The thing is, there were no exit numbers on US-64 until the past year in many places.

Is that not a thing in NC for many US route freeways?

I have seen event the part west of US 1 use exit numbers back in 2003, so I assumed it was a new thing.  I even saw other US routes in other parts use them too.  I cannot remember where and what route had them, but I assumed that NC was giving all US route freeways exit numbers.

[NJRoadfan]

They are a bit inconsistent with exit numbers on US routes. North of Raleigh they have 1 or 2 exit numbers signed on the US-1 Wake Forest bypass despite it not even being a freeway there, but the Henderson bypass has no exit numbers. They recently signed a few right at I-85 as part of the reconstruction project there.

[roadman65]

Oh yes now I remember US 1 started using them between Sanford and Carey post freeway widening in the early naughts when the super 2 was made into a standard divided freeway.

Probably that new freeway stretch added north of Southern Pines is signed with numbers I imagine as well.