Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sprjus4]

I say just replace all of the damn interchanges. They look relatively outdated and due for replacement.

Not really?

[tolbs17]

I say just replace all of the damn interchanges. They look relatively outdated and due for replacement.

Not really?

How? The merge lanes are short and the bridge clearances are not high enough.

[sprjus4]

I say just replace all of the damn interchanges. They look relatively outdated and due for replacement.

Not really?

How? The merge lanes are short and the bridge clearances are not high enough.

Define "replacement".

[tolbs17]

I say just replace all of the damn interchanges. They look relatively outdated and due for replacement.

Not really?

How? The merge lanes are short and the bridge clearances are not high enough.

Define "replacement".

i meant to say just widen the ramps.

[tolbs17]

NO US-264 shield here.

Seems like NCDOT forgot to add it when they replaced the sign in 2010-11.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.834397,-78.2999952,3a,75y,293.4h,95.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sejBF5j3DreJ_SC91zsCoVA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And here, there's enough room for a slip lane here, right? Should they add that?

[The Ghostbuster]

I think US 264 should have always terminated at US 64 in Zebulon (both at its original terminus with 64, and at its existing freeway-to-freeway junction with 64). The 1996 extension of 264 (duplexed with 64) to Interstate 440 was unnecessary, in my opinion. Likewise the former 64/264 duplex on the eastern end between Manns Harbor and Nags Head.

[tolbs17]

I think US 264 should have always terminated at US 64 in Zebulon (both at its original terminus with 64, and at its existing freeway-to-freeway junction with 64). The 1996 extension of 264 (duplexed with 64) to Interstate 440 was unnecessary, in my opinion. Likewise the former 64/264 duplex on the eastern end between Manns Harbor and Nags Head.

Greenville and Washington traffic will use US-64. Faster, less twisty and mileage.

US-64 used to approach as a directional T but it was realigned.

And for US-264 being truncated back at Zebulon, I wish NCDOT does that...

[tolbs17]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

[ahj2000]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

I’d imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.

[sprjus4]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

I’d imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.

Not necessarily a problem, just more that may be NCDOT’s preference. That stretch won’t be upgraded until it is widened to 6 lanes, likely at the end of the decade at the earliest unless it is accelerated. Then there’s the segment of US-264 between US-64 and I-95.

NCDOT could request authorization from the FHWA today to designate the portion between I-95 and the NC-11 Bypass as I-587, given that stretch now meets interstate standards and connects to an interstate highway.

[tolbs17]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

I’d imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.

Not necessarily a problem, just more that may be NCDOT’s preference. That stretch won’t be upgraded until it is widened to 6 lanes, likely at the end of the decade at the earliest unless it is accelerated. Then there’s the segment of US-264 between US-64 and I-95.

NCDOT could request authorization from the FHWA today to designate the portion between I-95 and the NC-11 Bypass as I-587, given that stretch now meets interstate standards and connects to an interstate highway.

They didn't do it for I-42 though.

I don't think they will until all the bypasses and upgrades to US-70 are complete?

[tolbs17]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

I’d imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.

Not necessarily a problem, just more that may be NCDOT’s preference. That stretch won’t be upgraded until it is widened to 6 lanes, likely at the end of the decade at the earliest unless it is accelerated. Then there’s the segment of US-264 between US-64 and I-95.

NCDOT could request authorization from the FHWA today to designate the portion between I-95 and the NC-11 Bypass as I-587, given that stretch now meets interstate standards and connects to an interstate highway.

And you say, the bridges CAN be replaced. Are they required to be replaced though?

[Dirt Roads]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

I’d imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.

Not necessarily a problem, just more that may be NCDOT’s preference. That stretch won’t be upgraded until it is widened to 6 lanes, likely at the end of the decade at the earliest unless it is accelerated. Then there’s the segment of US-264 between US-64 and I-95.

NCDOT could request authorization from the FHWA today to designate the portion between I-95 and the NC-11 Bypass as I-587, given that stretch now meets interstate standards and connects to an interstate highway.

Might be totally wrong here, but I think that NCDOT is still wary of fellow AASHTO members rejecting a proposal and having to wait another few years to get the same renumbering issue back on the docket.  Given the newer political clout wielded by the ever-growing of North Carolina congressional representatives, I would be surprised if AASHTO dared to stand in the way of future renumbering requests.  However, I respect NCDOT for being careful.  After all, that primary goal is to keep improving the entire network here (and not jump through unnecessary hoops to slap up Interstate shields).  (Even if it seems that way to the rest of the world).

[bob7374]

I've posted photos taken recently along the Future I-587 corridor by Adam Prince highlighting the recent completion of shoulder widening work in Greene and Pitt Counties at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html

[LM117]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

I’d imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.

That didn't stop NCDOT from signing I-495 between I-440 and I-540 before it was replaced by I-87. I-369 in Texas is also another example of a signed 3-di that doesn't connect with it's parent yet.

I think there's a decent chance I-587 will be signed between I-95 and Greenville. Back in late 2012/early 2013 when Greenville started their push for US-264 to become an interstate, they cared more for having an interstate connection to I-95 more than they did to Raleigh. Their initial proposal actually called for the interstate to end at I-95.

[tolbs17]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

I’d imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.

That didn't stop NCDOT from signing I-495 between I-440 and I-540 before it was replaced by I-87. I-369 in Texas is also another example of a signed 3-di that doesn't connect with it's parent yet.

I think there's a decent chance I-587 will be signed between I-95 and Greenville. Back in late 2012/early 2013 when Greenville started their push for US-264 to become an interstate, they cared more for having an interstate connection to I-95 more than they did to Raleigh. Their initial proposal actually called for the interstate to end at I-95.

Let's sign it I-595 before I-587 is official....

[fillup420]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

I’d imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.

That didn't stop NCDOT from signing I-495 between I-440 and I-540 before it was replaced by I-87. I-369 in Texas is also another example of a signed 3-di that doesn't connect with it's parent yet.

I think there's a decent chance I-587 will be signed between I-95 and Greenville. Back in late 2012/early 2013 when Greenville started their push for US-264 to become an interstate, they cared more for having an interstate connection to I-95 more than they did to Raleigh. Their initial proposal actually called for the interstate to end at I-95.

Let's sign it I-595 before I-587 is official....

Or just sign it as I-595 and leave it at that. The whole I-87 situation is pointless

[sprjus4]

Do these narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?

Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.

I’d imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.

That didn't stop NCDOT from signing I-495 between I-440 and I-540 before it was replaced by I-87. I-369 in Texas is also another example of a signed 3-di that doesn't connect with it's parent yet.

I think there's a decent chance I-587 will be signed between I-95 and Greenville. Back in late 2012/early 2013 when Greenville started their push for US-264 to become an interstate, they cared more for having an interstate connection to I-95 more than they did to Raleigh. Their initial proposal actually called for the interstate to end at I-95.

Let's sign it I-595 before I-587 is official....

Or just sign it as I-595 and leave it at that. The whole I-87 situation is pointless

Given the highway would connect to I-87 near Raleigh, it would make more sense for an I-x87 designation.

[tolbs17]

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340

http://prntscr.com/16uke7q

They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.

[sparker]

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340

http://prntscr.com/16uke7q

They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.

From this account, it appears that the northern half of the Greenville/NC 11 bypass is being considered as a part of the I-587 corridor, although IIRC the designated Interstate segment terminates at the junction of westward US 264 and that bypass.  Alternately, given the recent I-designation activity in this neck of the woods, upgrading the bypass would be the "camel's nose through the door" regarding a full N-S designation between I-42 at Kinston and I-87.  Guess the idea of leaving a spur hanging at Greenville just doesn't appeal much to local boosters!

[tolbs17]

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340

http://prntscr.com/16uke7q

They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.

From this account, it appears that the northern half of the Greenville/NC 11 bypass is being considered as a part of the I-587 corridor, although IIRC the designated Interstate segment terminates at the junction of westward US 264 and that bypass.  Alternately, given the recent I-designation activity in this neck of the woods, upgrading the bypass would be the "camel's nose through the door" regarding a full N-S designation between I-42 at Kinston and I-87.  Guess the idea of leaving a spur hanging at Greenville just doesn't appeal much to local boosters!

And it would make MORE sense to make it a East-West route.

[sparker]

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340

http://prntscr.com/16uke7q

They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.

From this account, it appears that the northern half of the Greenville/NC 11 bypass is being considered as a part of the I-587 corridor, although IIRC the designated Interstate segment terminates at the junction of westward US 264 and that bypass.  Alternately, given the recent I-designation activity in this neck of the woods, upgrading the bypass would be the "camel's nose through the door" regarding a full N-S designation between I-42 at Kinston and I-87.  Guess the idea of leaving a spur hanging at Greenville just doesn't appeal much to local boosters!

And it would make MORE sense to make it a East-West route.

As would the entirety of I-87 (and in particular Raleigh-Williamston).  But, at least officially and for the time being, that ship has sailed (or limped out of port!).  But this being NC and its proclivities regarding corridors and their designation, it might be a matter of staying tuned.

[sprjus4]

^ I see a much greater priority getting I-587 switched to east-west than I-87, which is more of a 50/50 route given existing cardinal directions on US-64 and US-17.

[sparker]

^ I see a much greater priority getting I-587 switched to east-west than I-87, which is more of a 50/50 route given existing cardinal directions on US-64 and US-17.

Since most 3di's (with the exception of longer linear routes like CA's I-215, I-135, and I-476 generally don't have directionality attached, the easiest solution would to just not banner I-587.  But if NCDOT insists on doing so, the argument for bannering E-W is bolstered by NY's rather long I-495, which is bannered as east and west.  IIRC, I-195 in RI/MA is as well.  Since the chances of I-587 being fully signed before I-87 are pretty solid, applying a N-S orientation there is patently silly and likely confusing to the driving public; NCDOT should know better! 

Alternative approach: redesignate it as a 2di like I-46; at 52-odd miles (not counting any extension over the Greenville bypass) it may be a bit short; but if folded back north to I-87 or south to I-42 there would be an additional 20 miles north or about 32 south.  At that point any controversy over bannering would disappear.   

[vdeane]

^ I see a much greater priority getting I-587 switched to east-west than I-87, which is more of a 50/50 route given existing cardinal directions on US-64 and US-17.

I'd hardly consider it 50/50.  Keep in mind that includes the east-west portion of US 17.  While it may be reasonable to sign that north-south now because US 17 is overall north-south (both within NC and nationwide), that mileage can hardly be counted as "north-south mileage" for the purposes of figuring out whether the Carolina Southway is overall north-south or east-west.

It's roughly 130 miles east-west distance between the "northern" and "southern" termini of the Southway.  It's only approximately 70 miles of north-south distance between the termini.  I didn't feel the reason to obsess over accuracy because such would not change the result; the route is overall east-west, no contest.

That said, I agree that signing I-587 north-south is stupid.  I can't believe NC doesn't know better than that.