Talk:Hampton Roads Beltway

Interstate 864
On the link that I give as a reference, a contributor says

"At one point, there was discussion of renumbering the     Interstates in that area, in order to make it less confusing      for travelers to VA Beach and the Outer Banks, and to get      more people to use the underutilized Monitor-Merrimac      Bridge-Tunnel (I-664).  There used to be an entire      web site about this.  The proposals included:       A) Renumber nothing.  Sign the I-64/664 beltway as the "Hampton         Roads Beltway".       B) Renumber I-64 between Bowers Hill and VA 44/I-264 as I-664.         Renumber VA 44 to I-64.       C) Renumber I-64 from Bowers Hill to VA 44/I-264, as well as         VA 44 to I-664.       D) Renumber all of I-664 and VA 44 as I-64.  Renumber I-64         from Newport News to VA 44/I-264 as I-864.       Predictably, option A was chosen, although later VA 44      was dropped for an extended I-264."

I too remember this website; from this Usenet message posted on December 30, 1997, it appears that it was a VDOT page available through 1996. Unfortunately, even the earliest version of VDOT's website at Archive.org (December 30, 1996) does not appear to have it as part of its contents. I'll see if I can find the old URL to the actual page. Mapsax 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted this to User talk:Vaoverland; I probably should have placed it here too.
 * I just found one proposal for an I-864, but not for the full beltway, on pages 53 and 62 of the May 1996 meeting minutes. It was option 4, taking I-64 along I-664 and SR 44 to the Virginia Beach oceanfront and adding I-864 along I-64 between Hampton and eastern Norfolk. Action was deferred for a month, and again for an unspecified amount of time in June 1996 (page 106). Obviously they never did anything. --NE2 01:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

(This matches what's pasted above.) Thus the only plan for I-864 was for a piece of the beltway. The options could be described in the article, but, as it stands, the reference to I-864 is misleading and incorrect. --NE2 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Interstate 864" still redirects to the article BTW so something should be done about that. Mapsax 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirecting is not wrong; the I-864 plan was part of the process that established the name for the beltway. --NE2 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, but now that there's no mention of I-864 in any capacity, it would seem to be a bit misleading to take somebody there with no explanation. IMO either a mention of the unpicked designation should be there somewhere, at least for context, or I-864 should get its own page.  I'm leaning towards the former since the latter would probably produce a page with too little content. Mapsax 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)