I-69 Ohio River Bridge

[hbelkins]

I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway. 

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?

[sprjus4]

^ I'd say in both instances, I-35W would be the mainline, I-35E would be the loop. It's more obvious with Dallas-Fort Worth rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul.

[sparker]

^ I'd say in both instances, I-35W would be the mainline, I-35E would be the loop. It's more obvious with Dallas-Fort Worth rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul.

While I-35W is the shorter of the two legs -- and probably carries more through traffic -- Dallas is the historically larger -- and more corporately prominent -- of the two cities; if an official body (AASHTO, FHWA) were making the decision today, they'd likely opt for the Dallas (35E) loop carrying the mainline designation.  But Fort Worth is catching up; from census projections, the incorporated city will pass the 1M mark mid-decade (Dallas is hemmed in by incorporated suburbs while Fort Worth has more room to expand).  But any decision of that type is likely moot; the E/W split has been signed for 60-odd years; the chances that TxDOT, any local jurisdiction or MPO, or any federal entity would put such a move on their radar are slim & none.     

[I-55]

^ I'd say in both instances, I-35W would be the mainline, I-35E would be the loop. It's more obvious with Dallas-Fort Worth rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul.

While I-35W is the shorter of the two legs -- and probably carries more through traffic -- Dallas is the historically larger -- and more corporately prominent -- of the two cities; if an official body (AASHTO, FHWA) were making the decision today, they'd likely opt for the Dallas (35E) loop carrying the mainline designation.  But Fort Worth is catching up; from census projections, the incorporated city will pass the 1M mark mid-decade (Dallas is hemmed in by incorporated suburbs while Fort Worth has more room to expand).  But any decision of that type is likely moot; the E/W split has been signed for 60-odd years; the chances that TxDOT, any local jurisdiction or MPO, or any federal entity would put such a move on their radar are slim & none.     

Let's also not forget which leg continues the mile markers of I-35, in both cases it's I-35E. A massive exit renumbering would likely deter some changes.

[vdeane]

I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway. 

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

^ I'd say in both instances, I-35W would be the mainline, I-35E would be the loop. It's more obvious with Dallas-Fort Worth rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Agreed.  Dallas has I-45 already, and St. Paul has a truck restriction.

[hbelkins]

I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway. 

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?

[sparker]

I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway. 

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?

US 2:  the south part of Canada.
US 422:  implied multiplex w/US 322 (although it is a bit weird and/or gratuitous, IMO).
Various IN separate routes:  Mileage cap + route number apathy.
Various AR separate routes:  Mostly topology.
Various CA separate routes:  Recissions and deletions and a modicum of politically-motivated activity.
"Elegance" is not a major factor in most DOT policy; remember that they have "handlers" with any number of agendas with which to deal.   In some instances (close to home out here!) it seems the agency in question has simply given up on any semblance of continuity or order. 

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway. 

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?

US 2:  the south part of Canada.
US 422:  implied multiplex w/US 322 (although it is a bit weird and/or gratuitous, IMO).
Various IN separate routes:  Mileage cap + route number apathy.
Various AR separate routes:  Mostly topology.
Various CA separate routes:  Recissions and deletions and a modicum of politically-motivated activity.
"Elegance" is not a major factor in most DOT policy; remember that they have "handlers" with any number of agendas with which to deal.   In some instances (close to home out here!) it seems the agency in question has simply given up on any semblance of continuity or order. 

Mileage cap is not the reason INDOT has turned local roads over to cities. It's just that INDOT doesn't want them.

[I-55]

I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway. 

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?

US 2:  the south part of Canada.
US 422:  implied multiplex w/US 322 (although it is a bit weird and/or gratuitous, IMO).
Various IN separate routes:  Mileage cap + route number apathy.
Various AR separate routes:  Mostly topology.
Various CA separate routes:  Recissions and deletions and a modicum of politically-motivated activity.
"Elegance" is not a major factor in most DOT policy; remember that they have "handlers" with any number of agendas with which to deal.   In some instances (close to home out here!) it seems the agency in question has simply given up on any semblance of continuity or order. 

Mileage cap is not the reason INDOT has turned local roads over to cities. It's just that INDOT doesn't want them.

And thus don't have to pay to maintain them.

[vdeane]

I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway. 

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?

Not sure what you mean by "explain".  I don't like them either, but we weren't discussing them.  Still, unless you have a situatoin like NJ 7 or like I-95 used to be, they don't really affect clinching too much, at least.  Regarding US 2, I consider it to be two separate routes with a duplicate number (another pet peeve).

Needless to say, the US route numbering system is a hot mess.  It saddens me that the interstates are becoming more like that (see: I-87, I-69 E/C/W, I-74, etc.).  Suffixed routes especially grate me because NY uses suffixes completely differently.  The concept of a route splitting just doesn't exist here, and hasn't since US 9E bit the dust.  Plus they just feel like a relic from the past.

[sprjus4]

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

[vdeane]

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

That list encompassed a multitude of issues.  I-87 is a duplicate.

[roadman65]

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

It's west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.

[sprjus4]

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

That list encompassed a multitude of issues.  I-87 is a duplicate.

True, but it's certainly not the first. Duplicate routes have been around for decades in certain instances. They're two distinctive routes in different regions.

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

It's west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.

Exactly. There's been reasonable arguments that the route should have been east-west as opposed to north-south, but either way, it's 50-50 and is acceptable in the ultimately picked north-south form, and give its southern terminus being located between I-85 and I-95, I-87 fits the grid.

[Rothman]

What does any of this have to do with I-69?

[bmeiser]

What does any of this have to do with I-69?

Thank you!

[Avalanchez71]

Do they plan on keep up the toll collection in perpetuity?

[abqtraveler]

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

It's west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.

True, for the section that's currently signed. But if and when the southern I-87 is fully built out, the vast majority of it will lie to the east of I-95.  Now as far as I-87's numbering is concerned, that was purely political. Looking on a map, you'll notice that most of the proposed alignment for I-87 runs in an east-west direction, save for the roughly 40-mile section between Norfolk, Virginia and Elizabeth City, North Carolina that runs north-south.

I recall some earlier proposals considered designating the corridor as I-44, I-50, or I-89, but from what I've read, I-87 was selected by North Carolina officials to commemorate North Carolina's admission into the Union in 1787. Again, the corridor's designation was rooted in politics, without regard to whether it fit into the national numbering grid. Think of I-87 as North Carolina's version of I-99.

[hbelkins]

What does any of this have to do with I-69?

The discussion turned to signing US 41E on the new I-69 and US 41W on the existing US 41, and went from there.

[vdeane]

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

That list encompassed a multitude of issues.  I-87 is a duplicate.

True, but it's certainly not the first. Duplicate routes have been around for decades in certain instances. They're two distinctive routes in different regions.

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

It's west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.

Exactly. There's been reasonable arguments that the route should have been east-west as opposed to north-south, but either way, it's 50-50 and is acceptable in the ultimately picked north-south form, and give its southern terminus being located between I-85 and I-95, I-87 fits the grid.

So the answer to "we have these numbering issues" is "let's just create more of them"?  We should be trying to make the system better (ie, more ordered), not worse.  And yes, it's majority east-west (it's not even remotley close), so an east-west number (of which there are many) would be better.  Heck, if NCDOT really wanted to put the corridor on the map, they could have called it I-50 or I-60!  It may not actually be transcontinental, but IMO better using an unlikely to ever be used x0 than duplicating a north-south number for no reason.

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

It's west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.

True, for the section that's currently signed. But if and when the southern I-87 is fully built out, the vast majority of it will lie to the east of I-95.  Now as far as I-87's numbering is concerned, that was purely political. Looking on a map, you'll notice that most of the proposed alignment for I-87 runs in an east-west direction, save for the roughly 40-mile section between Norfolk, Virginia and Elizabeth City, North Carolina that runs north-south.

I recall some earlier proposals considered designating the corridor as I-44, I-50, or I-89, but from what I've read, I-87 was selected by North Carolina officials to commemorate North Carolina's admission into the Union in 1787. Again, the corridor's designation was rooted in politics, without regard to whether it fit into the national numbering grid. Think of I-87 as North Carolina's version of I-99.

They submitted for I-89, but then AASHTO changed it to I-87 for unknown reason.

What does any of this have to do with I-69?

Wow, you really don't like thread drift, do you?  Perhaps forum threads should each say "I'm a discussion, not a RSS feed of press releases".  As mentioned, someone proposed splitting US 41 into US 41E and US 41W (after previous discussions of moving US 41 for whatever reason), and things snowballed from there.

[Avalanchez71]

What does any of this have to do with I-69?

The discussion turned to signing US 41E on the new I-69 and US 41W on the existing US 41, and went from there.

It would not be without precedent.  KY heretofore had a US 41E/US 41W.

[sprjus4]

True, for the section that's currently signed. But if and when the southern I-87 is fully built out, the vast majority of it will lie to the east of I-95.  Now as far as I-87's numbering is concerned, that was purely political. Looking on a map, you'll notice that most of the proposed alignment for I-87 runs in an east-west direction, save for the roughly 40-mile section between Norfolk, Virginia and Elizabeth City, North Carolina that runs north-south.

So? Again, disagreements about the numbering aside (it's not changing), a portion of the north-south route lies between I-85 and I-95, therefore it's in grid. How about routes like I-85, that lie the vast majority west of I-77? I-81, that lies partially west of I-77? I-71 which lies the vast majority east of I-75? I-59 which lies half east of I-65? The grid is not perfect.

As for what's east-west vs. north-south, I'm looking at existing designations. The 96 mile portion of US-64 is signed as east-west, and the 98 mile portion of US-17 (between US-64 and I-64) is signed as north-south. So it's roughly half. I don't really see an issue that much with east-west vs. north-south and causing visible confusion outside of the grid-strict roadgeek community which doesn't really have real-world implications. Would've an east-west designation been more desirable? Maybe. But it's not worth getting upset over now.

I recall some earlier proposals considered designating the corridor as I-44, I-50, or I-89, but from what I've read, I-87 was selected by North Carolina officials to commemorate North Carolina's admission into the Union in 1787. Again, the corridor's designation was rooted in politics, without regard to whether it fit into the national numbering grid. Think of I-87 as North Carolina's version of I-99.

False. AASHTO assigned them I-87 after I-89 was applied for by NCDOT. Why NCDOT went with a north-south route vs. east-west, who knows, but the specific number was not chosen by them.

And yes, it's majority east-west (it's not even remotley close), so an east-west number (of which there are many) would be better.  Heck, if NCDOT really wanted to put the corridor on the map, they could have called it I-50 or I-60!  It may not actually be transcontinental, but IMO better using an unlikely to ever be used x0 than duplicating a north-south number for no reason.

See comments above. Given existing designations, it's close to a 50-50 split, and given its north-south, it fits into the grid.

The corridor that should have more pushback, but doesn't seem to that much compared to I-87 (it being north-south vs. east-west and its numbering being a duplicate), should be I-587. It's a blatantly east-west route (straight shot, and no existing portions signed as north-south), and yet NCDOT is proposing designating it a north-south route. That is something that is truly going to cause confusion to the motoring public, and is worth legitimately complaining about.

There's also I-73, which given it will likely only ever exist between Roanoke and Myrtle Beach, is entirely out of grid. But again, it's an established designation, like I-99, and is not going to be changed. I personally don't have an issue with it.

The grid isn't perfect. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       

[SkyPesos]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       

Even it's like several decades in the future, isn't it theoretically possible that the two sections could connect by rerouting down existing 87 down the GSP in NJ, and routing the new 87 along US 13 in VA, MD, DE, then a fixed Cape May-Lewes crossing as the last piece of the puzzle? I guess that was AASHTO's thought for assigning 87 instead of 89?

But yea, the chance of them connecting is very unlikely, and AASHTO should've rejected NC's claim and assigned it I-46.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       

Even it's like several decades in the future, isn't it theoretically possible that the two sections could connect by rerouting down existing 87 down the GSP in NJ, and routing the new 87 along US 13 in VA, MD, DE, then a fixed Cape May-Lewes crossing as the last piece of the puzzle? I guess that was AASHTO's thought for assigning 87 instead of 89?

But yea, the chance of them connecting is very unlikely, and AASHTO should've rejected NC's claim and assigned it I-46.

If anyone thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell that the two sections of I-87 will be connected in any of our lifetimes, I've got plans for a new cross-S.F. Bay Bridge called the "Smartbarton" for which I'm searching for investors!  DM me if you're interested!