Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[cowboy_wilhelm]

I'd like to see a hybrid approach implemented on some of these rural freeways without full-width shoulders where there's a few hundred feet of 10-ft outside shoulder every 1/4 mile. Much cheaper than a continuous shoulder, and probably enough to cover the majority of cases requiring the emergency use of a shoulder. That would at least improve safety without waiting decades to fund a full shoulder.

[jcil4ever]

Just saw this, but not seeing any real update on NCDOT's webpage or any reports from the "U.S. 17 / U.S. 64 Association Board." Y'all heard of them before or seen minutes posted?


Edit: Apparently, they're based in a law office in New Bern, just a mile or so from me. Still not seeing much public about them 🤷 They do have a public webpage, but it hasn't been updated in a few years.

[bob7374]

Apparently the re-bid of the US 64/US 264 pavement rehab project produced the same results in March as in February, no acceptable bids. NCDOT is therefore advertising the project again this month. Too bad they didn't use the opportunity to fix some of the problems with the sign plans which I listed previously such as only US 64 West reassurance markers, not US 264, heading west of Zebulon and no additional reassurance markers at all heading east between Wendell and Zebulon (there are currently none after any of the exits).
The 'new' contract plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2026%20Highway%20Letting/04-21-26/Plans%20and%20Proposals/WAKE_FRANKLIN_I-6001_C205088/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

[The Ghostbuster]

It will take decades to complete Interstate 87 from Raleigh to Norfolk. I wouldn't be surprised if Interstate 587 is signposted between US 64 and Interstate 95 well before more of Interstate 87 is signposted along its proposed route.

[ARMOURERERIC]

What is the nature of the "unacceptable " part of the bids?.......Price?

[sprjus4]

It will take decades to complete Interstate 87 from Raleigh to Norfolk. I wouldn't be surprised if Interstate 587 is signposted between US 64 and Interstate 95 well before more of Interstate 87 is signposted along its proposed route.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was signposted in the next 5 years.

[bob7374]

Looks like they finally awarded the pavement rehabilitation project for US 64 (and US 264 where concurrent) from Rolesville Road to Nash County. Notice the headline emphasizes I-87, which is at best along 1 mile of the project. They don't mention that the project will not be widening the shoulders so that the rest will not be signed as I-87 any time soon:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2026/Smoother-Drive-Coming-to-I-87-in-Eastern-Wake-County.aspx

[sprjus4]

Looks like they finally awarded the pavement rehabilitation project for US 64 (and US 264 where concurrent) from Rolesville Road to Nash County. Notice the headline emphasizes I-87, which is at best along 1 mile of the project. They don't mention that the project will not be widening the shoulders so that the rest will not be signed as I-87 any time soon:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2026/Smoother-Drive-Coming-to-I-87-in-Eastern-Wake-County.aspx

Do we know for certain the project doesn't include shoulder widening? They've been spotty about doing it on some projects, then not on others. If this ends up including shoulder widening, I could see them applying to extend the I-87 designation to the US-264 split... especially if I-587 is coming in the near future.

[bob7374]

Looks like they finally awarded the pavement rehabilitation project for US 64 (and US 264 where concurrent) from Rolesville Road to Nash County. Notice the headline emphasizes I-87, which is at best along 1 mile of the project. They don't mention that the project will not be widening the shoulders so that the rest will not be signed as I-87 any time soon:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2026/Smoother-Drive-Coming-to-I-87-in-Eastern-Wake-County.aspx

Do we know for certain the project doesn't include shoulder widening? They've been spotty about doing it on some projects, then not on others. If this ends up including shoulder widening, I could see them applying to extend the I-87 designation to the US-264 split... especially if I-587 is coming in the near future.

It will include widening (see post #1946), but only 8 feet and only half of that will be paved. They could have at least made it 10 feet, even if 1/2 gravel it would be easier to upgrade that to interstate standards when needed.

[bob7374]

The NCDOT Construction Progress Report now has an entry for the Rolesville Rd to Nash County line pavement rehab contract (C205088). Work started on 6/1 on the 13.4 mile project. The original completion date is 8/1/2028. Apparently not in a hurry to get this done.

[brian440i]

Apologize if this has been answered in thread - I am awful at Searching and this is a Fantasy Question... based on NC originally wanting to Extend I-87 to Sanford.

Question:  Would the New Widing & Interchange (I-40/I-440/US1) meet Interchange Requirements for two XX Interstates?  If NC wanted to extend I-87 along I-40 and than South on US1? 

The Planned I-40 West to US 1 Flyover will be two lanes,  but will also have an existing left exit immediately after the split from I-40W that will connect to the existing B Loop of the CLover Leaf to connect to Walnut Street Exits.

Would they not have needed to have the Walnut Street Exit further to the Right and go over/under the I-40 W to US 1 South Flyover (If this movement was planned/hoped to be I-87 in 2050 - or just for the 200,000+ plus daily trips expected in 2045 NC DOT Documentation)

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/40-440-us-1-interchange/Pages/default.aspx

[Dirt Roads]

Apologize if this has been answered in thread - I am awful at Searching and this is a Fantasy Question... based on NC originally wanting to Extend I-87 to Sanford.

I believe that you are talking about the proposed I-140 to Sanford that was rejected by AASHTO back in 1999.  Don't hold me to it, but I'm pretty sure all of the discussion about extending I-87 from Raleigh -to- Sanford has been from the Roadgeek crowd wishing that the US-1 freeway corridor be reconsidered as an Interstate highway.  (So much for NCDOT being slap-happy).

[The Ghostbuster]

Does the US 1 freeway meet Interstate Standards between NC 42 and Interstates 40 and 440? If not, it would explain why the Interstate 140 designation was rejected (and why Interstate 87 won't be extended along it, logical as it may seem).

[bob7374]

Does the US 1 freeway meet Interstate Standards between NC 42 and Interstates 40 and 440? If not, it would explain why the Interstate 140 designation was rejected (and why Interstate 87 won't be extended along it, logical as it may seem).

US 1 is up to interstate standards. Here's a link to a Street View image just north of Sanford:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nRfsdP5iRXdyY3BKA (It could use repaving.)

The FHWA turned down NCDOT's request regarding designating US 1 between Raleigh and Sanford as I-140 in 1999 because Sanford was not seen as an appropriate endpoint for an interstate highway due to its population size. That was 25+ years ago though. A growing poplulation and the establishment of Future I-685 along US 421 through the city may cause NCDOT to try again, though, as others have pointed out, there's been no formal proposal to do so.

[Dirt Roads]

Question:  Would the New Widing & Interchange (I-40/I-440/US1) meet Interchange Requirements for two XX Interstates?  If NC wanted to extend I-87 along I-40 and than South on US1? 

I'm not well versed on whether freeway designs meet FHWA requirements for Interstates.  But it is my understanding that after getting smacked hard by both FHWA and AASHTO back in the 1990s, NCDOT has attempted to comply with all such rules whenever it is required to do so.  The entire Beltstrap between I-40 and I-440/US-1 should be in compliance with FHWA regulations for where two Interstates interchange with each other.

Does the US 1 freeway meet Interstate Standards between NC 42 and Interstates 40 and 440? If not, it would explain why the Interstate 140 designation was rejected (and why Interstate 87 won't be extended along it, logical as it may seem).

Most of this corridor appears to have wide medians and wide shoulders; whether they actually comply with the current Interstate standards perhaps someone else can pitch in.

There are two areas where I have concerns.  The congested area of US-1 through Cary (between the Beltline -and- Tryon Road) originally had a bunch of short onramp merge lanes; after the reconstruction completed in 2006 these merges seem to be more efficient but some of the shoulders seem to have been narrowed.

The other location is on the northbound lanes of US-1 at Exit 71B (US-15/US-501/NC-87 north), where there is a short offramp lane that takes up the entire shoulder of the bridge over Business Route "All-that-Stuff".  Just knowing NCDOT's reputation for whether they need to upgrade any particular structure already posted at 70 MPH to meet Interstate standards, I suspect that they would opt to end any such posted Interstate north of Exit 71.  Which is about 2 miles north of Exit 70 (US-421/By-Pass NC-87, but more importantly Future I-685). 

To further answer your question, US-1 south of Exit 71 never seemed to be up near Interstate standards.  But upon completion of Exit 70 (US-421/By-Pass NC-87) in 2013, that short stretch now appears to be up to snuff.  Then US-1 was widened south of there down to Exit 69A/B (Business US-421/Business NC-87).  South of that, there is hardly any shoulders whatsoever until you get past Tramway into the long RCUT sections.  No chance of NC-42 being important enough to extend any such Interstate posting down that far. 

(On the other hand, the State of North Carolina would love to have the FHWA fund an Interstate down to Southern Pines/Pinehurst and Aberdeen to open up this huge vacation playground in the Sandhills).  Maybe you get your wish for an Interstate down to NC-42 that way.

[Dirt Roads]

Does the US 1 freeway meet Interstate Standards between NC 42 and Interstates 40 and 440? If not, it would explain why the Interstate 140 designation was rejected (and why Interstate 87 won't be extended along it, logical as it may seem).

US 1 is up to interstate standards. Here's a link to a Street View image just north of Sanford:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nRfsdP5iRXdyY3BKA (It could use repaving.)

The FHWA turned down NCDOT's request regarding designating US 1 between Raleigh and Sanford as I-140 in 1999 because Sanford was not seen as an appropriate endpoint for an interstate highway due to its population size. That was 25+ years ago though. A growing poplulation and the establishment of Future I-685 along US 421 through the city may cause NCDOT to try again, though, as others have pointed out, there's been no formal proposal to do so.

Oops.  I was typing when <Bob7374> posted this.  I defer to his understanding.

[architect77]

Looks like they finally awarded the pavement rehabilitation project for US 64 (and US 264 where concurrent) from Rolesville Road to Nash County. Notice the headline emphasizes I-87, which is at best along 1 mile of the project. They don't mention that the project will not be widening the shoulders so that the rest will not be signed as I-87 any time soon:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2026/Smoother-Drive-Coming-to-I-87-in-Eastern-Wake-County.aspx

Do we know for certain the project doesn't include shoulder widening? They've been spotty about doing it on some projects, then not on others. If this ends up including shoulder widening, I could see them applying to extend the I-87 designation to the US-264 split... especially if I-587 is coming in the near future.

It will include widening (see post #1946), but only 8 feet and only half of that will be paved. They could have at least made it 10 feet, even if 1/2 gravel it would be easier to upgrade that to interstate standards when needed.

Have emergency shoulders on interstates always been what looks like an inferior pavement type, always having a different appearance, or didn't get resurfaced as often as the travel lanes?

I noticed this for the first time a few years ago and thought it seemed to say, "We can barely afford the repave the travel lanes and the entire paved surface will have to be 2 toned half deteriorated, half resurfaced."

It may have always been this way and I just didn't notice. Concrete pavement has asphalt shoulders too sometimes.

[Beltway]

Have emergency shoulders on interstates always been what looks like an inferior pavement type, always having a different appearance, or didn't get resurfaced as often as the travel lanes?

Same pavement type, just thinner. Typically 30-40% of the pavement thickness of roadway pavement. Given far less load cycles, this is appropriate.

[ElishaGOtis]

Have emergency shoulders on interstates always been what looks like an inferior pavement type, always having a different appearance, or didn't get resurfaced as often as the travel lanes?

Same pavement type, just thinner. Typically 30-40% of the pavement thickness of roadway pavement. Given far less load cycles, this is appropriate.

Florida does something that a few other surrounding states do, although I'm not sure if NC does it. It's my understanding that the lower structural course extends the full width of the paved roadway, and the friction course extends within the travel lanes +8" give or take.

https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/roadway/fdm/2026/2026fdm211lafacilities.pdf?sfvrsn=1242969c_11#page=25

[jdunlop]

Have emergency shoulders on interstates always been what looks like an inferior pavement type, always having a different appearance, or didn't get resurfaced as often as the travel lanes?

Same pavement type, just thinner. Typically 30-40% of the pavement thickness of roadway pavement. Given far less load cycles, this is appropriate.

Florida does something that a few other surrounding states do, although I'm not sure if NC does it. It's my understanding that the lower structural course extends the full width of the paved roadway, and the friction course extends within the travel lanes +8" give or take.

https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/roadway/fdm/2026/2026fdm211lafacilities.pdf?sfvrsn=1242969c_11#page=25

Any new interstate-level freeway will have full-depth shoulders, as will most rebuilt/widened ones.  This internal policy started somewhere around 2000.  I believe that's being done on the current project widening I-40 between US 15-501 and I-85.

[Beltway]

Have emergency shoulders on interstates always been what looks like an inferior pavement type, always having a different appearance, or didn't get resurfaced as often as the travel lanes?

Same pavement type, just thinner. Typically 30-40% of the pavement thickness of roadway pavement. Given far less load cycles, this is appropriate.

Florida does something that a few other surrounding states do, although I'm not sure if NC does it. It's my understanding that the lower structural course extends the full width of the paved roadway, and the friction course extends within the travel lanes +8" give or take.
https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/roadway/fdm/2026/2026fdm211lafacilities.pdf?sfvrsn=1242969c_11#page=25

Any new interstate-level freeway will have full-depth shoulders, as will most rebuilt/widened ones.  This internal policy started somewhere around 2000.  I believe that's being done on the current project widening I-40 between US 15-501 and I-85.

What do you mean by "full-depth shoulders"?

[WashuOtaku]

Any new interstate-level freeway will have full-depth shoulders, as will most rebuilt/widened ones.  This internal policy started somewhere around 2000.  I believe that's being done on the current project widening I-40 between US 15-501 and I-85.

What do you mean by "full-depth shoulders"?

A lot of the freeways that NCDOT built, without Federal dollars, in the 70s-90s had no or grass shoulders. Interstate standards require 10-feet of right paved shoulder and 4-feet left paved shoulder, with few exceptions. Those cost savings mean they do not meet the current Interstate standards and would need to be corrected before FHWA approves a interstate designation.

[jdunlop]

Full-Depth shoulders = Same pavement structure as travel lanes.

[Dirt Roads]

Any new interstate-level freeway will have full-depth shoulders, as will most rebuilt/widened ones.  This internal policy started somewhere around 2000.  I believe that's being done on the current project widening I-40 between US 15-501 and I-85.

Can confirm that the I-40 widening project in Orange County has full-depth shoulders.  A few sections of the newly constructed future shoulders have been utilized as travel lanes for construction phasing purposes around the new bridges over Old NC-86 at Exit 161.  For the most part, however, the original shoulders were overpaved for use as temporary travel lanes while the additional lanes were being constructed in the median.

Most railroads now do the same thing so that additional tracks (or any shoo-fly track) can be constructed directly over the previously constructed subgrade.  Railroads have a different issue, as any construction of subgrade adjacent to operating tracks may require modifications to the subgrade under the tracks to keep water from pooling in weak subgrade areas.

[Beltway]

Full-Depth shoulders = Same pavement structure as travel lanes.

Why do that unless it is 12 feet wide and planned for a future traffic lane? Or is a flex lane (emergency use traffic lane) like in parts of the Illinois tollways?