Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[architect77]

That's almost 2/3 the way across Texas, I think one interstate clocks in at over 1,000 miles across the Lone Star state which I've driven on and gotten 3 speeding tickets in West Texas.

The exit numbers would be 4 digits if that was the case. The highest exit number is in the 800s.

I honestly believe that it's over 1,000 miles across Texas. it may require 2 interstates to do it. I-10 through El Paso and another maybe from I-40 but even so that makes US64 seem even more special in NC at 640 miles long.

[architect77]

OK I was wrong but not by a huge amount.

US64 even gets mentioned on this tangent of a website, not by name but by mentioning Ocrakoke.

https://weekendroady.com/2011/07/30/800-miles-in-one-state/

[roadman65]

And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment

This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings).  The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU.  Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.

Ugh hum.  US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.

[tolbs17]

And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment

This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings).  The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU.  Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.

Ugh hum.  US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.

US-117 was on the freeway, and when they approved I-795, it was moved back on its original route. I mean I kinda get US-64 will stay on the freeway. US-264 should seriously be moved back though. We don't need so many US highways on freeways where new interstates can do their job.

[ahj2000]

And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment

This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings).  The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU.  Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.

Ugh hum.  US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.

US-117 was on the freeway, and when they approved I-795, it was moved back on its original route. I mean I kinda get US-64 will stay on the freeway. US-264 should seriously be moved back though. We don't need so many US highways on freeways where new interstates can do their job.

Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business"  interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.

[tolbs17]

And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment

This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings).  The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU.  Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.

Ugh hum.  US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.

US-117 was on the freeway, and when they approved I-795, it was moved back on its original route. I mean I kinda get US-64 will stay on the freeway. US-264 should seriously be moved back though. We don't need so many US highways on freeways where new interstates can do their job.

Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business"  interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.

Like you have I-587 and US-264 run together and this is the proposed sign for I-587? Makes no sense for me..

[froggie]

And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment

This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings).  The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU.  Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.

Ugh hum.  US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.

13 through Virginia Beach and Norfolk is a major 4-lane arterial highway.

AASHTO violated their own policies on allowing 117 to move back to its old alignment.  The old route was not "improved" and certainly wasn't 4+ lanes like 13 in Virginia Beach was.

[tolbs17]

And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment

This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings).  The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU.  Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.

Ugh hum.  US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.

13 through Virginia Beach and Norfolk is a major 4-lane arterial highway.

AASHTO violated their own policies on allowing 117 to move back to its old alignment.  The old route was not "improved" and certainly wasn't 4+ lanes like 13 in Virginia Beach was.

So US-117 should have stayed on the freeway? Or should have been called US-117 bypass instead?

[sprjus4]

13 through Virginia Beach and Norfolk is a major 4-lane arterial highway.

Wouldn't I-64 still have been the higher quality route? Military Highway is a 4 to 8 lane non-limited-access highway, whereas I-64 is a 4 to 8 lane controlled access interstate highway.

[froggie]

^ At the time 13 was moved back onto Military Hwy (1980), both routes were 4 lanes south of 264 (and the reversible HOV didn't exist north of 264 either).  Sure, 64 is the higher quality route by virtue of being controlled access, but Military Hwy is about a mile-and-a-half shorter and there's no doubting that it was and remains a principal arterial highway.  There's really not a good comparison to the 117 example because 117 by and large is still a rural 2-lane road with minimal improvements.

[rte66man]

That's almost 2/3 the way across Texas, I think one interstate clocks in at over 1,000 miles across the Lone Star state which I've driven on and gotten 3 speeding tickets in West Texas.

The exit numbers would be 4 digits if that was the case. The highest exit number is in the 800s.

It's 878 near the Sabine River and the LA border

[froggie]

Sabine River turnaround is Exit 880.

[wdcrft63]

And that being said, US-64 should go back on it's old alignment

This would go against a number of AASHTO policies (AASHTO being the arbiter when it comes to US highway routings).  The two most likely prospects are that either NCDOT retains 64 on the freeway, or they truncate 64 to somewhere in RDU.  Given that I-87 would turn north at Williamston, my money's on the former...leaving 64 on the freeway.

Ugh hum.  US 13 in VA was already on I-64 and moved later back to it's original alignment on Military Highway.

US-117 was on the freeway, and when they approved I-795, it was moved back on its original route. I mean I kinda get US-64 will stay on the freeway. US-264 should seriously be moved back though. We don't need so many US highways on freeways where new interstates can do their job.

Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business"  interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.

The interstate system was designed 70+ years ago with the interstate routes mostly paralleling existing US numbered highways. So it was obvious from the beginning that one of three things would have to happen to the US highway:
(1) move the US number onto the interstate
(2) leave it where it is
(3) decommission it.

I favor (b), but what's crazy is that there's no hard-and-fast rule, even within states and certainly not nationally.

[Mapmikey]

Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business"  interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.

Except in the case of NC, they have a long history of moving US routes onto the new interstate, then removing them:

US 64 Statesville
US 29 Charlotte
US 29 Salisbury
US 117 Fremont
US 70 Raleigh
US 401 Raleigh
US 17 Wilmington
US 220 Ellerbe


My argument here is that NC specifically can't make up its mind what to do with these parallel routes.  Incidentally I also favor leaving them be.

[tjcreasy]

Unless the route is unsafe, there are many opportunities in N.C. to move US routes off of interstates. They should start with US 21 through Charlotte.

[LM117]

Agreed. Having a US route act as the "business"  interstate works great and acts as the local road for an area. Think 64 for 40 further to the west, 29 for 85, 21 for 77, 301/95. There's a good reason these all are on the local roads instead of following the freeways they were replaced by.

Except in the case of NC, they have a long history of moving US routes onto the new interstate, then removing them:

US 64 Statesville
US 29 Charlotte
US 29 Salisbury
US 117 Fremont
US 70 Raleigh
US 401 Raleigh
US 17 Wilmington
US 220 Ellerbe


My argument here is that NC specifically can't make up its mind what to do with these parallel routes.  Incidentally I also favor leaving them be.

Not to get too far off-topic, but I was still living in Wayne County when US-117 was put back on it's old alignment. That happened because Fremont and Pikeville wanted it due to it's long familiarity with the local residents. They didn't like having two different US-117's. I grew up in Fremont and as backwards as that town is, I'm glad they got NCDOT to change it back.

Funny thing is that the idea of getting the freeway designated as I-795 was first floated by Wayne County in 2001, but it didn't get any traction and no further mention was made until NCDOT got approval for it in 2007. I never understood why NCDOT didn't try to get I-795 approved from the start in time for the freeway's opening in 2006 instead of playing musical chairs with US-117.

[snowc]

Sabine River turnaround is Exit 880.

wait a minute... interstate highways have exits that go beyond 600+ miles? 

[froggie]

Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes.  I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles.  All three have exit numbers well over 600.

[snowc]

Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes.  I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles.  All three have exit numbers well over 600.

Wow, yes I was serious! Never seen anything beyond 420 in NC.

[Mapmikey]

Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes.  I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles.  All three have exit numbers well over 600.

Wow, yes I was serious! Never seen anything beyond 420 in NC.

North Carolina also exceeds 500...here's the highest one - https://goo.gl/maps/r3Wp1ULxX53M8Aji8

[snowc]

Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes.  I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles.  All three have exit numbers well over 600.

Wow, yes I was serious! Never seen anything beyond 420 in NC.

North Carolina also exceeds 500...here's the highest one - https://goo.gl/maps/r3Wp1ULxX53M8Aji8

Holy crap! That's now the highest I've seen in my life.

[architect77]

Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes.  I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles.  All three have exit numbers well over 600.

And guess what, California didn't even have numbers on any freeway/interstate exits until the Feds forced them to add them in 2000s. Exits just said "Exit". I lived there for 5 years in the 90s and no numbers were used.

[sparker]

Not sure if you're being serious there or not...but if so, yes.  I-10 and I-20 in Texas, and I-5 in California, all clock in at over 600 miles.  All three have exit numbers well over 600.

And guess what, California didn't even have numbers on any freeway/interstate exits until the Feds forced them to add them in 2000s. Exits just said "Exit". I lived there for 5 years in the 90s and no numbers were used.

After the abortive effort from the late '60's, the actual numbering effort on the state's portion of the Interstate system began in early 1997 and was effectively completed by about 2004; at the discretion of the individual district, other freeways, including US 101, started posting exit numbers about 1998; most freeways within the state feature exit numbers today.  Mileposting is a different story; that seems to be a task too herculean for Caltrans to swallow right now (an attempt to do so along CA 58 circa 2003-04 was abandoned within a couple of years).  Sure don't expect to see extensive mileposting in my own lifetime! 

[tolbs17]

Question - should I-87 from US-64 Bus to the US-64/264 split be widened to 8-lanes right off the bat instead of 6? 

That's to only estimate if explosive growth in that area I assume.

imo i say if AADT is higher than 90,000 then it definitely needs 8 lanes.

I think 8 lanes would be better for the Knightdale bypass between I-440 and I-540.

like others say, it will be another 30 years before the project can be done again, like when they built I-40 west of Durham, it was 4 lanes, and sprjus4 said it should have been built as 6 lanes.

[sprjus4]

NCDOT seeking federal funding for proposed I-87

The N.C. Department of Transportation has asked the federal government for funding to complete Interstate 87 and to install broadband along the over 200-mile roadway from Virginia to Raleigh.

Future I-87 will also serve as an interstate connection between the Port of Virginia and I-95.

NC East Alliance Director Vann Rogerson, who leads one group pushing for the highway, said that NCDOT submitted an Infrastructure For Rebuilding America Grant application last week seeking federal funding for the project that started with a $1 billion price tag.

"This is a grand opportunity for us to get funding,"  Rogerson said. "We are keeping our fingers crossed.''

Rogerson said the state should know in about five months if INFRA funding will be available for the interstate project. He said the alliance is seeking letters of support for it from local governments, state and federal elected officials and business leaders in North Carolina and Virginia.

"The Port of Virginia needs a southern route out to Interstate 95 for that flow of materials,"  Rogerson said. "We have support letters from the Port of Virginia. Obviously, there are a lot of people interested in getting this corridor developed."

During the 2020 presidential campaign, President Joe Biden said he would pursue massive spending on infrastructure projects if elected. Following up on that priority, his administration will soon unveil a $4 trillion plan that's expected to allocate money for roads, bridges rail lines, water and sewer systems, improvements to the power grid and to expand broadband access.

Rogerson said the funds DOT are seeking are from a federal infrastructure grant.

"Back in January, we started focusing in a more united way to see if there were some rural federal infrastructure monies that we could get assigned since the Biden Administration was coming in,"  he said. "We feel this is a good opportunity because the federal government is going to spend money on infrastructure projects."

The grant application is also seeking to install fiber optic cable along the entire length of the future I-87 corridor, as well as the extension of U.S. 64 from Williamston to Whalebone in Dare County.

The broadband would allow NCDOT to install state-of-the-art wind and flood monitoring systems and could be the "backbone"  of expanding internet access in rural counties along I-87.

"They are going to have some excess capacity there that can be used by communities,"  Rogerson said. "I believe they are going to have some dark fiber as a part of that.'' Dark fiber is unused optical fiber.

Once completed, I-87 is expected to generate economic development all along the corridor, with Camden and Pasquotank counties especially benefiting because of their close proximity to the Port of Virginia.

"There are so many companies looking to be 30 minutes or an hour from an interstate and that corridor is just critical for us,"  Rogerson said. "

The grant application comes just three months after participants at a virtual work session on I-87 were told that many parts of the project were pushed back by several years because of NCDOT budget shortfalls.

NCDOT has faced several financial challenges that started with Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and continued with Hurricane Florence in 2018, causing the agency to spend more than $400 million to repair damage caused by the two storms.

A decrease in driving during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a drop of gas tax revenue which further hurt NCDOT's finances.