Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WV, OH and MI have all said they're not going to build I-73 or I-74. I-73 is supposed to run from Myrtle Beach to I-81 in Roanoke, but typical VA politics have killed I-73 in VA. SC is trying to get their part started.
If the western connection to 74 isn't going to happen, they should renumber 74 in NC. Call it an extended 79 or something and then WV and VA can extend the 79 designation south along 77. I'm certain that putting up a few hundred signs is less of an imposition than building new roads.
If the western connection to 74 isn't going to happen, they should renumber 74 in NC. Call it an extended 79 or something and then WV and VA can extend the 79 designation south along 77. I'm certain that putting up a few hundred signs is less of an imposition than building new roads.
Unfortunately, NCDOT couldn't renumber I-74 even if they wanted to. The I-74 number itself (along with I-73) was written and passed into law by Congress. It would take an act of Congress for the designation to change. I-74 wouldn't have been approved in NC otherwise, since it's waaay out of the numbering grid. That's why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request to designate US-70 as I-36 and approved I-42 instead. I'm not sure why AASHTO rejected I-89. I guess they felt I-87 was closer to the numbering grid. I'm even more surprised they approved an odd-number north-south route for a corridor that is mostly east-west.
Unfortunately, NCDOT couldn't renumber I-74 even if they wanted to. The I-74 number itself (along with I-73) was written and passed into law by Congress. It would take an act of Congress for the designation to change. I-74 wouldn't have been approved in NC otherwise, since it's waaay out of the numbering grid. That's why AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request to designate US-70 as I-36 and approved I-42 instead. I'm not sure why AASHTO rejected I-89. I guess they felt I-87 was closer to the numbering grid. I'm even more surprised they approved an odd-number north-south route for a corridor that is mostly east-west.
That's what I've hated about Interstate designations written into law. (See "Shuster, Bud.")
I guess they decided to go with 87 since the VA portion would be decidedly north-south. But that's just a guess.
The Raleigh RTA posted their latest blog on I-87. It gives their rationale for I-87 being a suitable number (I guess announcing that I-89 got rejected wouldn't look good on their part). These two paragraphs are the most interesting. I guess the RTA is unaware that NCDOT has already said that they would request Interstate standard sections of both corridors to be added to the Interstate system. The Super 70 Corridor Commission will undoubtedly be putting the same pressure to have I-42 signed on the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses since they already meet Interstate standards.
The RTA business coalition will seek the timely installation of “Interstate 87†signage from its southern terminus at I-40 (exit 301) in southeast Raleigh to at least I-540 along the US 64/264 (currently I-495) corridor east of Raleigh.
The RTA will also seek the timely installation of “Future I-87†signage along the remaining portions of the existing “Future I-495†corridor west of I-95 and the corridor segments along US 64 and US 17 east of I-95.
Interstate 87 just seems like such a bad idea. Highway 87 is already 4 lanes and divided median between Sanford and Fayetteville. Very confusing. But who am I to say...
Interstate 87 just seems like such a bad idea. Highway 87 is already 4 lanes and divided median between Sanford and Fayetteville. Very confusing. But who am I to say...
It won't be as confusing as NC-42 and I-42, since they cross each other. NCDOT wanted to avoid duplicating nearby state route numbers, which is why they submitted I-36 and I-89. AASHTO changed the numbers to I-42 and I-87 and told NCDOT to either take it or leave it. NCDOT took it, reluctantly. AASHTO's desire to keep the Interstate numbering grid as close to accurate as possible trumped NCDOT's concern for the confusion caused by having routes with the same number in close proximity, especially NC-42 and I-42. There's been no mention by NCDOT as to whether or not they will renumber NC-42.
Interstate 87 just seems like such a bad idea. Highway 87 is already 4 lanes and divided median between Sanford and Fayetteville. Very confusing. But who am I to say...
In western NC, out near where we have a vacation place, there was NC 26, the road leading from US 221 near Marion to Little Switzerland and the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Along came I-26, over nearby in Asheville. So NC 26 got rechristened NC 226.
Then, the powers that be realized that a snaking, windy road was a Bad Idea for trucks getting up and down the mountain, so NC 226 was realigned with a new section bypassing Little Switzerland going straight to Spruce Pine. The old NC 226 ended up becoming NC 226-A.
I found it interesting that AASHTO only approved the NC segment of I-87. I was under the impression that NC and VA had jointly agreed on the route; however, as it currently stands, I-87 technically ends at the NC-VA line above Elizabeth City.
I assume VDOT will have to put in its own application to AASHTO to extend I-87 up to the I-64/I-464 interchange in Chesapeake. I wonder when or if that will happen. Unlike its neighbor to the south, Virginia hasn't been very active in pursuing new Interstate designations.
I found it interesting that AASHTO only approved the NC segment of I-87. I was under the impression that NC and VA had jointly agreed on the route; however, as it currently stands, I-87 technically ends at the NC-VA line above Elizabeth City.
I assume VDOT will have to put in its own application to AASHTO to extend I-87 up to the I-64/I-464 interchange in Chesapeake. I wonder when or if that will happen. Unlike its neighbor to the south, Virginia hasn't been very active in pursuing new Interstate designations.
Yes, VDOT has to submit their own application to AASHTO and FHWA for their section of I-87. I don't see it happening. To be brutally honest, I don't believe for a second VA will ever build their part of I-87. Don't get me wrong, I definitely want I-87 built. But let's face it, NC pretty much strong-armed VA into getting the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor signed into law. VDOT didn't have a choice but to agree. Only 4 out of 11 VA Congressmen supported the bill while all of NC's supported it. The only support I-87 has in VA is from Hampton Roads. The rest of the state couldn't care less about it, no more than they ever did for I-73, which is now dead in VA. I-87 already has two strikes against it, the same two strikes that pretty much eliminated I-73: 1) I-87 doesn't lead to or benefit Richmond. 2) I-87 doesn't lead to or benefit NoVA. Hampton Roads should thank NC for being on a future interstate corridor (and I'm fairly certain they already have). I guarantee it wouldn't have happened if it weren't for NC.
On the plus side, it's only about 17 miles in Virginia, so it's not a huge project and perhaps they can be convinced it would be good for the VA economy to have that direct connection from the port into NC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
