News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Beltway

#600
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 10:00:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 07:35:40 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 07:26:39 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
The reason why they don't build a 'straight shot' route is because it would go thru very rural areas and would serve hardly any even very small towns.
...or that the Army Corps of Engineers would frown upon a new route cutting through wetlands when there are existing upgradable routes available, as VDOT discovered when they blew millions on the US-460 toll road without any dirt being turned.
That wasn't at all the reason why the US-460 freeway project was stopped.  It was because of lying, dishonesty and a corrupt process of the McAullife administration who stopped the project.
Care to elaborate? Because pulling the plug on a toll road that would've been on a completely new alignment paralleling the existing US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, that had a snowball's chance in hell of getting approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and would've carried little traffic since it would've been easily shunpiked, seemed like a good decision to me. The US-460 toll road would've been an even bigger boondoggle than I-87! :banghead:

That is part of the lies of the McAullife administration.

The project had a completed NEPA process, meaning an FHWA approved Final EIS and Record of Decision.  The ROD included comments by ACOE that they approved of the alignment.  The project contract was awarded.  When the McAullife administration came in they got their cronies in the Obama EPA to delay what would have been the routine final permits, that kept the project from entering construction.  Then they did a Supplemental EIS that somehow (!) came up with wetland acreage impact totals that were 4 times the figure in the Final EIS that had been approved a couple years before.  Then they killed the project on the grounds that the wetland impacts were "too high".  This was after $240 million was spent since the contract award on design-build and what I would term "rapid and intense mobilization", and this money was permanently lost to the state.  The $1.4 billion contract for 49 miles of 4-lane Interstate-caliber freeway works out to about $28 million per mile, and they will never see a deal that good again.

An Interstate-caliber highway between the Richmond-Petersburg area and South Hampton Roads would have gotten plenty usage, especially in the future, and it would have either relieved traffic on I-64 or at least forestalled growth on I-64.  It would have had a $3.70 toll which I would have found very reasonable and would have made it the ideal route for those points.  It would have been completed in 2016.  Preventing "shunpiking"  would have been easy, keep the old US-460 at 4 lanes in the towns and repaint the roadway in the rural areas as 2 lanes with full paved shoulders.  The Interstate route (I suggested either I-62 or I-264 extended) would have open road tolling and would have beat the old highway hands down.  (I am aware that the 6-lane US-58 between Suffolk and I-64, that Interstate upgrades are necessary).

So now we are stuck with a 4-lane undivided highway (except for about a dozen intersections that have turn lanes) with structurally flawed, bumpy (right lanes have concrete base that is 75+ years old) and worn out pavement that needs either total replacement or to be relegated to minor primary traffic volumes.  The pavement total replacement would cost at least $100 million and it would still be a substandard highway.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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


wdcrft63

Folks, if you want to discuss US 460, you're in the wrong forum.

sprjus4

#602
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2018, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
Raleigh-Norfolk on Google Maps it is 184 miles current versus 208 miles proposed.

Looking at it from Google Maps, US 64 at I-95 to I-64 at US 17 via 58 is 135 miles, whereas 17 is 150, which is a 15 mile difference.

Spurious comparison.  I-64/US-17 junction is 7 miles from downtown Norfolk, so that would subtract mileage from your route.

Going from center to center like I did is a better overall comparison.  24 miles difference.  The existing route is even more favorable for the western part of the metro such as the I-664 corridor.

The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, should be upgraded to full freeway standards within 10 years.  The 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will widened to 6 lanes with access management, starting in 2 years.

What I'm trying to say though, no extensive upgrades are happening. The bypass connectors will really be the only time-saving one, by a minute. The 6-lane management will turn the road into a slower speed limit, more traffic signals, and the US 58 to I-64 upgrades will simply help traffic flow better, and make it safer, but no speed increases (as far as I know), etc.

In the end, the projects (except for the bypass connector) will simply help traffic flow better, not speed anyone up (except for the bypass connector). If VDOT were to consider a full freeway from Suffolk to Emporia/South Hill, they would most likely use new location as an excuse to use tolls (except for existing bypasses), just like 460. Follow the $$$. Obviously, the wish is to have a freeway 58, 460, and 17/64 for no tolls, but obviously the only viable one when it comes to money is 17/64, which NCDOT is able to fund, which is why they're doing it. This interstate linkage is needed, and since VDOT can't do it, NCDOT decided to use this route instead since they could fund it. VDOT just doesn't have the money to create a freeway from Suffolk to Emporia, and if they did, it'd probably be tolled.

Interested for this to come out in September - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/us_58_arterial_management_plan.asp

Beltway

#603
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 23, 2018, 07:04:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
I-64/US-17 junction is 7 miles from downtown Norfolk, so that would subtract mileage from your route.
Going from center to center like I did is a better overall comparison.  24 miles difference.  The existing route is even more favorable for the western part of the metro such as the I-664 corridor.
The US-58 sections between the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, and between the Suffolk Bypass and I-64, should be upgraded to full freeway standards within 10 years.  The 4-mile section just west of the Suffolk Bypass will widened to 6 lanes with access management, starting in 2 years.
What I'm trying to say though, no extensive upgrades are happening. The bypass connectors will really be the only time-saving one, by a minute. The 6-lane management will turn the road into a slower speed limit, more traffic signals, and the US 58 to I-64 upgrades will simply help traffic flow better, and make it safer, but no speed increases (as far as I know), etc.

The 6-lane access management project will not reduce the speed limit or create more traffic signals, it will considerably improve traffic flow.

Given 20 years there will surely be major upgrades.  Given the modest traffic volumes and the high-type design of the current highway, the average end-to-end speed is not much less than that of an Interstate highway.

Current VA law allows any limited access highway the possibility of a 70 mph speed limit.  The bypasses are all limited access.  A half year before the 1973 NMSL, a 65 mph possible maximum was approved for 4-lane divided nonlimited-access highways, which the NMSL canceled before any went into effect.  No reason why it could not be approved again.  (And don't give me this garbage that it would "reduce the ticket revenue").
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Beltway

Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 23, 2018, 06:17:47 PM
Folks, if you want to discuss US 460, you're in the wrong forum.

Agreed.  I will post it in the appropriate thread that already exists. 

I have been waiting for the opportunity!   :pan:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

wdcrft63

I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.

It would have been smart for Virginia to develop a freeway along US 58, but it's a lot tougher to start doing that now. In the meanwhile North Carolina developed US 64 as a freeway all the way from Raleigh to Williamston.

I don't think there was ever a real plan for a statewide freeway network in NC; there was just a feeling that if we need to upgrade a crummy highway, we might as well build a freeway. This impulse has served the state well.

Beltway

Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.

Virginia has over 450 miles of limited access town and city bypasses on the 4-lane arterial highway system.  Add-em-up.   Also a number of major metropolitan non-Interstate freeways such as VA-288, VA-150, VA-76, VA-895, VA-168, VA-164, VA-267 and VA-28.  Different ways of distributing the mileage, but it is there in quantity nonetheless.

N.C. is a rapid-population-growth state, 20-22% per decade over the last 30 years.  The national average is about 12%.  Virginia has been about 14% which is above average.  N.C. far exceeds that and they really need their level of highway construction, they would be choking otherwise.

N.C.'s major central cities lack rivers, which simplifies road needs.  Take a look at the James River, the Potomac River, the Elizabeth River, the Hampton Roads estuary, and Chesapeake Bay and look at the large number of major bridges and tunnels that have been needed there.  More are planned in the near future.  Then get back with me about N.C.'s highway system that is boring in comparison.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.

Virginia has over 450 miles of limited access town and city bypasses on the 4-lane arterial highway system.  Add-em-up.   Also a number of major metropolitan non-Interstate freeways such as VA-288, VA-150, VA-76, VA-895, VA-168, VA-164, VA-267 and VA-28.  Different ways of distributing the mileage, but it is there in quantity nonetheless.

N.C. is a rapid-population-growth state, 20-22% per decade over the last 30 years.  The national average is about 12%.  Virginia has been about 14% which is above average.  N.C. far exceeds that and they really need their level of highway construction, they would be choking otherwise.

N.C.'s major central cities lack rivers, which simplifies road needs.  Take a look at the James River, the Potomac River, the Elizabeth River, the Hampton Roads estuary, and Chesapeake Bay and look at the large number of major bridges and tunnels that have been needed there.  More are planned in the near future.  Then get back with me about N.C.'s highway system that is boring in comparison.

That's the whole point here, you're contradicting yourself now. North Carolina is in a much better position to build this interstate than Virginia is along 58. VDOT is mainly concerned in widening urban Hampton Roads interstates/highways/roads & major water crossings over the next 10-15 years. The entire US 58 corridor to 95 and Emporia is in the Hampton Roads district which is where a lot of the funds there are being prioritized in the urban freeways/roads, the water crossings, etc, not to create some new rural freeway to Emporia that wouldn't have much significance to the flow of traffic, like urban HR, or another example is the US 460 bypass of Windsor which also get denied cause of costs of $400 million, and again, lack of significance to the flow of traffic compared to HR. Imagine what a full 58 freeway would cost. If 58 ever did get an upgrade, it wouldn't be for another 10-20+ years after all of urban Hampton Roads is funded, and enough can be saved for an entire 58 freeway.

On the other hand, NCDOT has an entire land route, and so does VDOT's portion, which is much more feasible to upgrade, as there's no big water crossings upgrades like Hampton Roads NCDOT has to deal with. Division 1 also does not have any major urban areas to deal with, along with no existing interstates, no water crossings, no major traffic issues to deal with, which puts them in the better position to build a new freeway all the way through. The Elizabeth City also has a military base which lacks any connection to the interstate system. Also, all the towns on the I-87 corridor are all in support, whereas a 58 freeway might have some opposition, especially near Emporia. So look at it this way - 17 will get done before any full 58 freeway is complete, and 17 is also more feasible, cost effective, and reasonable. So this is why the routing of I-87 is the way it is.

sprjus4

#608
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
I've lived quite a few years in both Virginia and North Carolina, and I'm familiar with both the US 58 and US 64/17 corridors, so I have at least some basis for comparing the two states. Virginia has plenty of good roads but it has never had the commitment to freeways I see in North Carolina. The current internet craze (and it is kind of a craze) is only the latest chapter in a long process. Over the past 35 years or so NC has upgraded hundreds of miles of US highways to freeways, including long stretches of US 1, 52, 64, 70, 74, 264, 321, and 421, plus shorter stretches of US 15 and 17. All but a few NC cities now have some sort of freeway connection to the interstate system. Elizabeth City is one of the exceptions, and that's one of the things driving the I-87 project.

It would have been smart for Virginia to develop a freeway along US 58, but it's a lot tougher to start doing that now. In the meanwhile North Carolina developed US 64 as a freeway all the way from Raleigh to Williamston.

I don't think there was ever a real plan for a statewide freeway network in NC; there was just a feeling that if we need to upgrade a crummy highway, we might as well build a freeway. This impulse has served the state well.

Good portions of U.S. 220 were also freeway before turned into I-73/74.

This is North Carolina's proposed projects which went through the STIP for the next 10 years. Many of them didn't receive funding, though it gives you an idea of what they want in 20+ years down the line. http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=2b885d0f163b4c34a831c65010fd5703

Beltway

#609
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 04:13:52 PM
That's the whole point here, you're contradicting yourself now. North Carolina is in a much better position to build this interstate than Virginia is along 58.

And I have posted ad infinitum why the long circuitous route east of I-95 along US-64 and US-17, is not suited for an Interstate highway when a capable 4-lane interregional highway already exists, and no cities exist along that route other than at each end and already well connected.

If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

#610
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 04:13:52 PM
That's the whole point here, you're contradicting yourself now. North Carolina is in a much better position to build this interstate than Virginia is along 58.

And I have posted ad infinitum why the long circuitous route east of I-95 along US-64 and US-17, is not suited for an Interstate highway when a capable 4-lane interregional highway already exists, and no cities exist along that route other than at each end and already well connected.

If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.

The statement "no cities exist along along that route" is false. U.S. 64/U.S. 17 from Raleigh to Norfolk have cities of Nashville, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City. There's also lots of towns along the route such as Knightdale, Zebulon, Spring Hope, Momeyer, Tarboro, Princeville, Robersonville, Everetts, Williamston, Windsor, Edenton, Hertford, and Winfall. It is a route filled with lots of other communities as well, many towns, and a few cities. It has major growth opportunities. As for time and miles, there are a few bypasses for US 17 that would shave off some time & miles, such as the talked about Williamston north bypass, and also a southern Windsor which would also straight shot to the Windsor bypass, as opposed to the existing arc around today.

On the other hand, U.S. 58 has the cities of Suffolk and Franklin, and the towns of Courtland and Capron. Your statement more goes for 58. Less growth opportunities on that corridor.

wdcrft63

Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM

If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.

sprjus4

Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM

If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.

I think I-87 is meant for both really, it not only bring the eastern cities/towns into the interstate system, also economic growth, and just to provide an interstate between these two thriving areas.

Jmiles32

#613
Wonder if at the I-95/US-64(Future I-87) interchange near Rocky Mount NCDOT will post Norfolk as a control city in order to try and divert as much traffic as possible from the popular and shorter I-95/US-58 route.
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

sprjus4

Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 24, 2018, 07:29:44 PM
Wonder if at the I-95/US-64(Future I-87) interchange near Rocky Mount NCDOT will post Norfolk as a control city in order to try and divert as much traffic as possible from the popular and shorter I-95/US-58 route.

Most likely, as Norfolk will probably be added to most signage northbound I-87. Also going north at the 95 split off, a new overhead saying "I-87 North Norfolk, Elizabeth City" should be added.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
The statement "no cities exist along along that route" is false. U.S. 64/U.S. 17 from Raleigh to Norfolk have cities of Nashville, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City. There's also lots of towns along the route such as Knightdale, Zebulon, Spring Hope, Momeyer, Tarboro, Princeville, Robersonville, Everetts, Williamston, Windsor, Edenton, Hertford, and Winfall. It is a route filled with lots of other communities as well, many towns, and a few cities.

Nashville is on Future I-495.  Rocky Mount is on I-95 and the current route.  If Elizabeth City is incorporated as a city then it is a very small city.  East of Rocky Mount it is a very rural corridor that is well served by the existing 4-lane interregional highway.  The 4-lane interregional highway concept was made for a corridor like that.  An Interstate highway would be wasteful.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
It has major growth opportunities. As for time and miles, there are a few bypasses for US 17 that would shave off some time & miles, such as the talked about Williamston north bypass, and also a southern Windsor which would also straight shot to the Windsor bypass, as opposed to the existing arc around today.

Very little if any per satellite views.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
On the other hand, U.S. 58 has the cities of Suffolk and Franklin, and the towns of Courtland and Capron. Your statement more goes for 58. Less growth opportunities on that corridor.

I am not advocating an Interstate route along US-58, so your comment is irrelevant.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 07:41:34 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 24, 2018, 07:29:44 PM
Wonder if at the I-95/US-64(Future I-87) interchange near Rocky Mount NCDOT will post Norfolk as a control city in order to try and divert as much traffic as possible from the popular and shorter I-95/US-58 route.
Most likely, as Norfolk will probably be added to most signage northbound I-87. Also going north at the 95 split off, a new overhead saying "I-87 North Norfolk, Elizabeth City" should be added.

You have a good spyglass, looking 30+ years into the future.   :hmmm:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Beltway

Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.

There was some absurdity to my statement.  You are not going to feasibly connect two cities with an Interstate highway when a better route already exists. 

Northeastern North Carolina is already tied to the central part of the state via a 4-lane interregional highway (US-64 and US-17).
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 07:49:40 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
If you want an Interstate trip between Raleigh and Norfolk, why don't you take Future I-495 and I-95 and I-64?  Think before you answer.
Once, when Hurricane Floyd had a lot of eastern NC under water, I did drive to Norfolk via I-95 and I-64. I've also driven several times via I-95 and US 58. So those options do work, although you're asking for a lot of traffic on the I-95/I-64 route. However, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.

There was some absurdity to my statement.  You are not going to feasibly connect two cities with an Interstate highway when a better route already exists. 

Northeastern North Carolina is already tied to the central part of the state via a 4-lane interregional highway (US-64 and US-17).

4 lane highways exist all over, but what do most people prefer driving, 4 lane divided highways, or interstates? One example is from Norfolk to Bristol, I do a route on Google Maps and it tells me to take I-64 to I-81 which is 417 miles. US 58 is 387 miles, but it still routes me on the faster route. Interstates bring higher speeds, much quicker movements in and out of cities/towns, more businesses along the router, etc. That's the whole point for this thing.

Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 07:42:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
The statement "no cities exist along along that route" is false. U.S. 64/U.S. 17 from Raleigh to Norfolk have cities of Nashville, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City. There's also lots of towns along the route such as Knightdale, Zebulon, Spring Hope, Momeyer, Tarboro, Princeville, Robersonville, Everetts, Williamston, Windsor, Edenton, Hertford, and Winfall. It is a route filled with lots of other communities as well, many towns, and a few cities.

Nashville is on Future I-495.  Rocky Mount is on I-95 and the current route.  If Elizabeth City is incorporated as a city then it is a very small city.  East of Rocky Mount it is a very rural corridor that is well served by the existing 4-lane interregional highway.  The 4-lane interregional highway concept was made for a corridor like that.  An Interstate highway would be wasteful.

Rocky Mount is on the east side of I-95, not part of the old 495, and Elizabeth City is an actively growing city, along with the other larger towns on 17. I do think 58 is the faster route right now, and yes my opinion is that it should become a freeway/interstate. But the fact is, VDOT doesn't have any large improvements planned for the corridor except around Suffolk, and until any 58 freeway is made, I-87 will be most likely faster when it's completed, bring a higher speed route to US 17, and will grow eastern NC alot. Another aspect is it will tie Elizabeth City into Hampton Roads better with the interstate between the two, and two new industry parks/mega sites planned near there.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
4 lane highways exist all over, but what do most people prefer driving, 4 lane divided highways, or interstates?

The 4-lane interregional highway class fulfills a valuable role in intra-state highways that supplement the Interstate system, and provide connectivity to smaller towns and cities that are not on the Interstate system.  More than a 2-lane highway but less than a freeway.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
One example is from Norfolk to Bristol, I do a route on Google Maps and it tells me to take I-64 to I-81 which is 417 miles. US 58 is 387 miles, but it still routes me on the faster route. Interstates bring higher speeds, much quicker movements in and out of cities/towns, more businesses along the router, etc. That's the whole point for this thing.

Of course not.  Bad comparison.  US-58 still has some long 2-lane sections between I-77 and Stuart, that really slow things down, and can handle only low volumes.  The distance difference is a much smaller percentage than with so-called I-87.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
I do think 58 is the faster route right now, and yes my opinion is that it should become a freeway/interstate. But the fact is, VDOT doesn't have any large improvements planned for the corridor except around Suffolk, and until any 58 freeway is made, I-87 will be most likely faster when it's completed, bring a higher speed route to US 17,

Already refuted, several times, this is getting tiresome.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Mapmikey

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 08:07:29 PM

Rocky Mount is on the east side of I-95, not part of the old 495, and Elizabeth City is an actively growing city, along with the other larger towns on 17. I do think 58 is the faster route right now, and yes my opinion is that it should become a freeway/interstate. But the fact is, VDOT doesn't have any large improvements planned for the corridor except around Suffolk, and until any 58 freeway is made, I-87 will be most likely faster when it's completed, bring a higher speed route to US 17, and will grow eastern NC alot. Another aspect is it will tie Elizabeth City into Hampton Roads better with the interstate between the two, and two new industry parks/mega sites planned near there.

Let's try this a different way.  Right now Google says it is 2 hr 41 min from the Raleigh Beltway to Port Norfolk using 95/58.  Google also shows it is 203 miles if I use 64/17 to Port Norfolk.  I doubt I-87 will be appreciably shorter than this.  In order to cover the 203 miles in 2 hr 41 min I would have to average 76 mph.  This would be quite a feat given the speed limit the last 10 miles or more in the Norfolk area will not be 70.  So count me with the crowd that says I-87 will not be faster.

And in case folks are skeptical that VDOT is looking to improve US 58 from Emporia to Suffolk, VDOT is already formally studying the entire corridor:  http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/us_58_arterial_management_plan.asp

The remaining Courtland stoplight will be gone by the end of the year (new interchange) and ROW is underway for the west Suffolk improvements noted in this thread.

LM117

#621
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2018, 06:54:32 PMHowever, I-87 is not designed only to provide a route from Raleigh to Norfolk. Its real purpose, IMHO, is to serve northeastern North Carolina and tie that region more closely to the central part of the state.

It was also designed to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. That way, they could advertise to businesses that the region has an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast.

If there was ever any proof of that very reason, I got it in 2016 when NC's Congressional delegation introduced the Eastern NC Gateway Act in Congress. The bill would've designated the NC-11/US-13 corridor between Kinston and Bethel a High Priority Corridor and future interstate. Obviously the bill didn't get anywhere since it was introduced shortly before the 2016 elections, but the state hasn't given up on it. The Greenville Southwest Bypass that's currently under construction is being built to interstate standards and NCDOT has plans to upgrade NC-11 to interstate standards between the SW Bypass and the future interchange with the Harvey Parkway just north of Kinston.

https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Greenville%20hwy.pdf

The NC-11 upgrade project was included in NCDOT's 2018-2027 STIP. It can be found on page 128, Project R-5815.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

Beltway

Quote from: LM117 on February 24, 2018, 09:57:02 PM
It was also designed to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. That way, they could advertise to businesses that the region has an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast.

But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 24, 2018, 09:57:02 PM
It was also designed to give eastern NC an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia. That way, they could advertise to businesses that the region has an interstate connection to one of the largest ports on the East Coast.

But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.

That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
But why?  They already have a high speed and high capacity 4-lane interregional highway that makes that connection.  Actually two, there is also the 4-lane highway US-158/NC-168/VA-168.
That's the issue these days, 4 lane highways work mainly fine, but it's all about money, money, and more money. You have a 4 lane route that works fine, but if you slap a shield on it with a high speed limit, it brings more business in money. I don't fully agree with the system of interstate designations, as it's all for money and business in the end, it just happens to come with a more convenient route, which is the part the public mainly hears about, not the money aspect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but nowadays that would cost upteen billions of dollars just so that some people can feel good.

Many 4-lane interregional highways have average speeds that are nearly that of an Interstate highway.  Obstacles to that are major signalized intersections, and those can be selectively replaced with interchanges.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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



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