The proposed Raleigh-Norfolk corridor - why I-44 or I-50?

[Pink Jazz]

Since this route would be mostly within NC, I think it belongs in this forum.

I was wondering, is there any particular reason why the most popular number choices for the proposed Raleigh-Norfolk corridor are I-44 or I-50?  I-44 already exists, and I-50 is also a poor choice since normally east-west routes ending in a zero are the longest routes (I-30 being the lone exception). 

Why not I-46, I-54, or I-56?  Those would seem like the most logical and would not conflict with any U.S. routes in either state.  What does anyone here think?

[74/171FAN]

Also for the record, there is currently not a VA 44, and NC 44 is just a placeholder for the Goldsboro Bypass until US 70 is placed on it at its completion, so route numbers would be a non-issue with I-44.

[Pink Jazz]

Also for the record, there is currently not a VA 44, and NC 44 is just a placeholder for the Goldsboro Bypass until US 70 is placed on it at its completion, so route numbers would be a non-issue with I-44.

But I-44 already exists, and it is highly unlikely that such route would ever be connected with the existing I-44.

[Henry]

Also for the record, there is currently not a VA 44, and NC 44 is just a placeholder for the Goldsboro Bypass until US 70 is placed on it at its completion, so route numbers would be a non-issue with I-44.

But I-44 already exists, and it is highly unlikely that such route would ever be connected with the existing I-44.

Well, that didn't stop I-76, I-84, I-86 or I-88 from being duplicated.

[jwolfer]

I always thought it should be i42

[WashuOtaku]

It depends on what article you read the story from, the typical place holder is I-44 because in an NCDOT memo over a decade ago it mention it as a possible number.  Current memos from NCDOT and some articles now say both I-44 and I-50; but ultimately it's AASHTO and FHWA decision.

I-44 came out first and at the time NC 44 didn't exist in the state.  Currently NC 44 does exist, but that will change to US 70 Bypass next year, so it's a mute point; especially considering how long it takes to approve such routing, numbering and construction to standards.

I-50 came later because, yes, I-44 already exists; and also because US 50 doesn't exist in both NC and VA.  any existing state highway numbers can easily be renumbered, if needed (North Carolina appears to have gave up on renumbering with existence of NC 73/I-73, NC 540/I-540, etc.).  The reason I-50 was skipped in the original interstate system was because of US 50 overlapping area; it being established for a roughly 200 mile route shouldn't disqualify it.

Other numbers may be chosen, never know.

Regardless, I think a two-digit interstate between the two cities, through Williamston is a great idea.  This will redirect travel from users taking I-95/US 58 as well as provide a second freeway connection to the Hampton Roads area, which is a major port.  Heck, this may very well hurt the North Carolina ports as a result.

[74/171FAN]

I-50 came later because, yes, I-44 already exists; and also because US 50 doesn't exist in both NC and VA.  any existing state highway numbers can easily be renumbered, if needed (North Carolina appears to have gave up on renumbering with existence of NC 73/I-73, NC 540/I-540, etc.).  The reason I-50 was skipped in the original interstate system was because of US 50 overlapping area; it being established for a roughly 200 mile route shouldn't disqualify it.

Other numbers may be chosen, never know.

I guess we will have to see if Virginia cares about I-50 and US 50 being in the same state (though in completely different portions unlike I-74/US 74 and I-73/NC 73).

For the record, US 13 and VA 13 have both separately existed for a long time though VA 13 only serves Powhatan County.  (though VA 13 could easily become a US 60 Bus/ALT around Powhatan CH and probably decommissioned west of there).

[WashuOtaku]

I guess we will have to see if Virginia cares about I-50 and US 50 being in the same state (though in completely different portions unlike I-74/US 74 and I-73/NC 73).

Honestly, I didn't realize US 50 went into Virginia.  But again who knows, there are other available even interstate numbers between I-40 and I-64 that are available:  42, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60 and 62.  Obviously 52, 58 and 60 are out of the question because of proximity; still leaves with several potentials.  And like I said previously, AASHTO/FHWA may go with an entirely different number all together.

[Duke87]

As I mentioned on FB: ahh, I love the smell of pork in the morning.

Highways are far more useful if their routing is direct. What congress is decreeing shall be an interstate corridor between Raleigh and Norfolk is incredibly indirect, going via Williamston rather than northeasterly from Rocky Mount. The sponsoring congressman's goal here is not to connect Raleigh and Norfolk, it is to establish as many miles of interstate within North Carolina as he can get away with so that more money gets spent in his state, usefulness of the road be damned. Your tax dollars at work!

[The Nature Boy]

As I mentioned on FB: ahh, I love the smell of pork in the morning.

Highways are far more useful if their routing is direct. What congress is decreeing shall be an interstate corridor between Raleigh and Norfolk is incredibly indirect, going via Williamston rather than northeasterly from Rocky Mount. The sponsoring congressman's goal here is not to connect Raleigh and Norfolk, it is to establish as many miles of interstate within North Carolina as he can get away with so that more money gets spent in his state, usefulness of the road be damned. Your tax dollars at work!

See: I-73 and 74.

North Carolina loves interstate highways.

[WashuOtaku]

:sarcastic gasp:

This is not the first nor last "High Priority Corridor" that will be established politically.  In fairness, he does represent the area that he is trying to establish an interstate through and not just doing it for the state to get more federal dollars.  Most politicians see an interstate as an economic driver for depressed or underdeveloped areas, so this is not surprising.

I'm also sure the main control city of this possible new route will be Williamston, since that is the mid-way point and where the interstate would switch directions and US routes; Raleigh and Norfolk might also be listed, but likely not be prominent till after Williamston.

[wdcrft63]

A couple of thoughts.

I'm not seeing any interest in this project in Virginia; am I right about that? If Virginia wanted a new interstate connection to Norfolk, US 58 would be more direct.

The purpose of the US 64 freeway from Raleigh to Williamston is to speed traffic to the Outer Banks resorts. It wasn't planned as a connection to Norfolk, so I assume this is a new idea originating more in Elizabeth City.

As for "North Carolina loves interstates," I would respond, do other states not love them?

[The Nature Boy]

A couple of thoughts.

I'm not seeing any interest in this project in Virginia; am I right about that? If Virginia wanted a new interstate connection to Norfolk, US 58 would be more direct.

The purpose of the US 64 freeway from Raleigh to Williamston is to speed traffic to the Outer Banks resorts. It wasn't planned as a connection to Norfolk, so I assume this is a new idea originating more in Elizabeth City.

As for "North Carolina loves interstates," I would respond, do other states not love them?

They enthusiastically jumped on I-73 and 74 when the other states on the corridor have been either ambivalent, slow to respond or just hostile towards the idea. Other states certainly love them but NC seems to be particularly interstate happy over the past couple of decades.

[WashuOtaku]

A couple of thoughts.

I'm not seeing any interest in this project in Virginia; am I right about that? If Virginia wanted a new interstate connection to Norfolk, US 58 would be more direct.

The purpose of the US 64 freeway from Raleigh to Williamston is to speed traffic to the Outer Banks resorts. It wasn't planned as a connection to Norfolk, so I assume this is a new idea originating more in Elizabeth City.

As for "North Carolina loves interstates," I would respond, do other states not love them?

H. R. 2211 (ROAD Act of 2015) has the support of only four Virginia representatives, while has all North Carolina representatives in toe.  So it has some support, but obviously a bigger deal for North Carolina.

[froggie]

In fairness, he does represent the area that he is trying to establish an interstate through and not just doing it for the state to get more federal dollars.

The problem with this line of thinking is that, especially with Congress no longer using earmarks and other program changes due to past legislation, this does *NOT* automatically grant North Carolina additional Federal dollars.  If anything, it will hamper NCDOT because it will force them to redirect some of their existing Federal highway funding stream to the new route, which means that other NCDOT projects (and probably more worthy projects from a traffic perspective) get short shrift just so this guy can claim he helped build an Interstate in his district.

And since the House GOP also took a gas tax increase out of their recent highway bill, there's no way anyway to pay for additional highway spending like what this Congressman is trying to do for his district.  If he voted against the gas tax increase, he's nothing more than a hypocrite.

Most politicians see an interstate as an economic driver for depressed or underdeveloped areas, so this is not surprising.

Most politicians also don't realize that it takes far more than a fancy highway shield in order to get quality economic development.  There are PLENTY of depressed/underdeveloped areas nationwide that sit right along an Interstate highway route, but are not doing any better because of that Interstate route.

[The Nature Boy]

In fairness, he does represent the area that he is trying to establish an interstate through and not just doing it for the state to get more federal dollars.

The problem with this line of thinking is that, especially with Congress no longer using earmarks and other program changes due to past legislation, this does *NOT* automatically grant North Carolina additional Federal dollars.  If anything, it will hamper NCDOT because it will force them to redirect some of their existing Federal highway funding stream to the new route, which means that other NCDOT projects (and probably more worthy projects from a traffic perspective) get short shrift just so this guy can claim he helped build an Interstate in his district.

And since the House GOP also took a gas tax increase out of their recent highway bill, there's no way anyway to pay for additional highway spending like what this Congressman is trying to do for his district.  If he voted against the gas tax increase, he's nothing more than a hypocrite.

Most politicians see an interstate as an economic driver for depressed or underdeveloped areas, so this is not surprising.

Most politicians also don't realize that it takes far more than a fancy highway shield in order to get quality economic development.  There are PLENTY of depressed/underdeveloped areas nationwide that sit right along an Interstate highway route, but are not doing any better because of that Interstate route.

The entirety of I-95 in North Carolina runs through some pretty economically depressed areas and that interstate connects NC to DC, New York, Boston and Miami. That alone should tell them that interstate highways don't cure poverty.

[WashuOtaku]

The problem with this line of thinking is that, especially with Congress no longer using earmarks and other program changes due to past legislation, this does *NOT* automatically grant North Carolina additional Federal dollars.

When did Congress stop earmarks and other program changes?  Did they pass a rule banning such things because they tend to sneak crap in every bill that doesn't belong all the time.

If anything, it will hamper NCDOT because it will force them to redirect some of their existing Federal highway funding stream to the new route, which means that other NCDOT projects (and probably more worthy projects from a traffic perspective) get short shrift just so this guy can claim he helped build an Interstate in his district.

You don't know that; you are guessing and making assumptions.

And since the House GOP also took a gas tax increase out of their recent highway bill, there's no way anyway to pay for additional highway spending like what this Congressman is trying to do for his district.  If he voted against the gas tax increase, he's nothing more than a hypocrite.

They may not have included a fuel tax increase, which is the main source of funding, they do have other fund sources too.  It is not likely that congress voted on a gas tax increase because that would have been resolved in committee before the entire bill is read in House.  However, politicians are generally hypocrites, it goes with the territory.

Also, passing a law for it and making it happen are two different things.  We see how other states have struggled to build I-73 (Virginia and South Carolina) because of lack of funds; and others (like Ohio and Michigan) flat out said no to it.  Other future interstates that were established in previous Transportation Bills have yet to be built too, like I-14.  Regardless if it makes it to the final bill and signed by the President, the new interstate may still be decades away.

Most politicians also don't realize that it takes far more than a fancy highway shield in order to get quality economic development.  There are PLENTY of depressed/underdeveloped areas nationwide that sit right along an Interstate highway route, but are not doing any better because of that Interstate route.

I did not say the logic was sound, only that its the common reason that politicians give.  The other big road project he proposed in North Carolina is called the "Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act," which is to designate US 70 and US 117 as high priority corridors to better connect the military bases and port of Morehead City.  Will this really help those bases and will that drive more shippers to use that port when Norfolk and Wilmington are better, unlikely... but that's the sales pitch that was given.

[Duke87]

As for "North Carolina loves interstates," I would respond, do other states not love them?

In many cases no, no they do not. Ohio, for example, has pretty much flat out said they have no intention of designating any more interstates because they don't want to be forced to build a highway to strict interstate standards when it isn't warranted. Then you have states like Connecticut which have just about stopped building any new freeways, period, and are unlikely to change that anytime soon.

Most politicians also don't realize that it takes far more than a fancy highway shield in order to get quality economic development.  There are PLENTY of depressed/underdeveloped areas nationwide that sit right along an Interstate highway route, but are not doing any better because of that Interstate route.

Including some places where economic depression has been directly caused by the construction of an interstate. Take a small town in a rural area that draws a significant chunk of its livelihood from sitting at the junction of two highways, and then bypass it. Watch the town fall apart and die because no travelers are patronizing its businesses anymore.

In fairness, he does represent the area that he is trying to establish an interstate through

No, not in fairness. Assigning high priority to a non-pressing need because it is in your district is pretty much the textbook definition of pork. The decision of where and how to build roads belongs in the hands of transportation planners and engineers, not politicians.

[WashuOtaku]

In fairness, he does represent the area that he is trying to establish an interstate through

No, not in fairness. Assigning high priority to a non-pressing need because it is in your district is pretty much the textbook definition of pork. The decision of where and how to build roads belongs in the hands of transportation planners and engineers, not politicians.

Yet, we have a lot of roads built from pork projects.  Ironically, there are a lot of hog farms along the proposed route in North Carolina.

[SteveG1988]

As for "North Carolina loves interstates," I would respond, do other states not love them?

In many cases no, no they do not. Ohio, for example, has pretty much flat out said they have no intention of designating any more interstates because they don't want to be forced to build a highway to strict interstate standards when it isn't warranted. Then you have states like Connecticut which have just about stopped building any new freeways, period, and are unlikely to change that anytime soon.

Most politicians also don't realize that it takes far more than a fancy highway shield in order to get quality economic development.  There are PLENTY of depressed/underdeveloped areas nationwide that sit right along an Interstate highway route, but are not doing any better because of that Interstate route.

Including some places where economic depression has been directly caused by the construction of an interstate. Take a small town in a rural area that draws a significant chunk of its livelihood from sitting at the junction of two highways, and then bypass it. Watch the town fall apart and die because no travelers are patronizing its businesses anymore.

In fairness, he does represent the area that he is trying to establish an interstate through

No, not in fairness. Assigning high priority to a non-pressing need because it is in your district is pretty much the textbook definition of pork. The decision of where and how to build roads belongs in the hands of transportation planners and engineers, not politicians.

I've been on some of the Ohio Freeway Us Routes....they're excellent.

Just build a State Route to the standard you want, don't take a interstate # just to make it look fancier, or have more leverage to build the darn road.

I-99 could have been a State Road for example, or just kept as a US Route for example, if you're going to take a # at least take one that is way out of the grid for the side of the country you're on. For example I-99 could have been I-21. I-50 should be used for an east-west interstate in the extreme south or Extreme northern united states. Where the US route does not go.

[Brandon]

Also for the record, there is currently not a VA 44, and NC 44 is just a placeholder for the Goldsboro Bypass until US 70 is placed on it at its completion, so route numbers would be a non-issue with I-44.

But I-44 already exists, and it is highly unlikely that such route would ever be connected with the existing I-44.

Well, that didn't stop I-76, I-84, I-86 or I-88 from being duplicated.

That's because there really aren't any more 70s or 80s in the grid to be used.  72, 74, and 78 are also used (74 twice as far as I'm concerned as IA-OH 74 will never meet NC 74); and 82 is also used.

[Brandon]

As for "North Carolina loves interstates," I would respond, do other states not love them?

Obviously Illinois.  See I-39, I-72, and I-88(W) for starters.

[roadman65]

I have to agree duplication is wrong.  I-84 in OR, ID, and UT should have been I-82, and I-82 should be I-7 or I-9 as those numbers will probably never get used and mostly cause I-82 is like I-24 and could easily be a N-S signed highway.

I-76 in CO should be a 3 digit route of either I-80 or I-70.

I-86 should not be in New York, but then again Idaho wasted a good two digit for a short interstate as well.  NY should have extended I-88 which has no business being in Illinois anyway, along I-86.  Then either leave NY 17 east of Binghamton as is, and so what it had two or three sections that were expressway grade.

I-99 was because some douchebag in Congress decided to make a law giving a preexisting freeway with a US route number already an interstate number of his own choosing.  Just like any governor who names a stadium after himself while he is in office while it gets built, is what Buddy Boy did there.

Then I-2 in Texas is another example of a route number being wasted as all it is a feeder for two interstates that really need to be one anyway so that Mexican Truckers have one route number to follow to get to Toronto.  Remember US 77 and US 281 are so close to each other its like NY State building an interstate for US 20 or NY 5 between Albany and Buffalo.


To get back on topic I-42 is the best number.  I-50 should be for I-64 or if VDOT ever decides to upgrade US 58 into a corridor.

[Henry]

I have to agree duplication is wrong.  I-84 in OR, ID, and UT should have been I-82, and I-82 should be I-7 or I-9 as those numbers will probably never get used and mostly cause I-82 is like I-24 and could easily be a N-S signed highway.

I-76 in CO should be a 3 digit route of either I-80 or I-70.

I-86 should not be in New York, but then again Idaho wasted a good two digit for a short interstate as well.  NY should have extended I-88 which has no business being in Illinois anyway, along I-86.  Then either leave NY 17 east of Binghamton as is, and so what it had two or three sections that were expressway grade.

I-99 was because some douchebag in Congress decided to make a law giving a preexisting freeway with a US route number already an interstate number of his own choosing.  Just like any governor who names a stadium after himself while he is in office while it gets built, is what Buddy Boy did there.

Then I-2 in Texas is another example of a route number being wasted as all it is a feeder for two interstates that really need to be one anyway so that Mexican Truckers have one route number to follow to get to Toronto.  Remember US 77 and US 281 are so close to each other its like NY State building an interstate for US 20 or NY 5 between Albany and Buffalo.


To get back on topic I-42 is the best number.  I-50 should be for I-64 or if VDOT ever decides to upgrade US 58 into a corridor.

So basically what you're saying is that they should've never gotten rid of the suffixed routes in the first place? I still remember looking at the first atlases that came out after the suffixes (with the exception of the two I-35 splits) were renumbered, and wondering why they were now using numbers that already existed in the East.

Regarding I-86, CT and MA wasted that number on a short route, but that can be excused since I-84 was to go from Hartford to Providence instead of Sturbridge (where the original I-86 would end). MD wasted I-97 on a very short route that could've easily been part of a rerouted I-83 (which should've been done when it was realized that the route into Baltimore would never be completed).

I agree that the selection of I-82 was screwed up because it now exists north of the western I-84.

As for this corridor, I could see I-42, I-46, I-48, I-52, I-54, I-56, I-58, and I-62 being used here. Save I-50 and I-60 for longer transcontinental routes.

[The Ghostbuster]

Personally I don't care what number US 64 east of Raleigh gets, although if they had numbered the road Interstate 695 instead of Interstate 495, they could have extended it to Norfolk, since Virginia does not have an Interstate 695.