Print

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

[jdunlop]

State transportation secretary hopes for I-587 designation in 2022

A state transportation department official gave a status update on the future of I-587 and other roadway projects during a virtual event sponsored by the Greenville-Pitt County Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.

Transportation Secretary J. Eric Boyette said $26 million has been spent on resurfacing, installing guardrails and widening highway shoulders to bring the stretch of U.S. 264 between Greenville and Zebulon up to interstate standards.

“We understand what it means for North Carolina, especially for Greenville and Pitt County,” Boyette said. “This will be the first conversation to a major interstate.

“It’s not only the interstate designation,” he said. “It plays a role for improving the transportation infrastructure for us as a state, but there is job creation, access to health care and recreation. It’s how we connect our state across all our county lines.”

It’s expected the Federal Highway Administration will rule on its interstate designation sometime in 2022, Boyette said.

Certified public accountant Benny Hardy asked what residents could do to ensure the interstate designation remains a priority.

The bulk of the physical work is complete, said Thomas Taft Jr., Division 2 representative on the state Board of Transportation.

“I think it’s just a matter of keeping the pressure on the feds to not let this slip behind anymore,” Taft said. “It’s really more of a squeaky wheel scenario, not to overuse that.”

That would be news to AASHTO which approved the I-587 designation based on getting word from the FHWA that it had already approved the route. Either the news hasn't gotten to the Secretary's office or, since they don't have plans to put up signs until 2022, they are using this as the excuse why it is not being signed immediately.

There is an obvious lack of communication within NCDOT. I found that out firsthand when I emailed them a question that asked what the timetable was for putting I-42 shields on the Goldsboro Bypass, and the guy who responded to me was under the impression that it was still "Future I-42". This was after former NCDOT Chief Engineer Tim Little told the US-70 Corridor Commission that FHWA had given it's approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42. I suspect this is another case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.

WashuOtaku noted upthread that NCDOT is planning to seek approval to re-route US-264 onto it's old alignment between Saratoga and Greenville, so that also may be the reason for the delay in signing I-587.

If Boyette really is unaware that FHWA has already approved I-587 while other NCDOT employees were and didn't tell him, then that's just embarrassing.

I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO.  Approval anticipated in January.  The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it.  Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)  The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)

[LM117]

State transportation secretary hopes for I-587 designation in 2022

A state transportation department official gave a status update on the future of I-587 and other roadway projects during a virtual event sponsored by the Greenville-Pitt County Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.

Transportation Secretary J. Eric Boyette said $26 million has been spent on resurfacing, installing guardrails and widening highway shoulders to bring the stretch of U.S. 264 between Greenville and Zebulon up to interstate standards.

“We understand what it means for North Carolina, especially for Greenville and Pitt County,” Boyette said. “This will be the first conversation to a major interstate.

“It’s not only the interstate designation,” he said. “It plays a role for improving the transportation infrastructure for us as a state, but there is job creation, access to health care and recreation. It’s how we connect our state across all our county lines.”

It’s expected the Federal Highway Administration will rule on its interstate designation sometime in 2022, Boyette said.

Certified public accountant Benny Hardy asked what residents could do to ensure the interstate designation remains a priority.

The bulk of the physical work is complete, said Thomas Taft Jr., Division 2 representative on the state Board of Transportation.

“I think it’s just a matter of keeping the pressure on the feds to not let this slip behind anymore,” Taft said. “It’s really more of a squeaky wheel scenario, not to overuse that.”

That would be news to AASHTO which approved the I-587 designation based on getting word from the FHWA that it had already approved the route. Either the news hasn't gotten to the Secretary's office or, since they don't have plans to put up signs until 2022, they are using this as the excuse why it is not being signed immediately.

There is an obvious lack of communication within NCDOT. I found that out firsthand when I emailed them a question that asked what the timetable was for putting I-42 shields on the Goldsboro Bypass, and the guy who responded to me was under the impression that it was still "Future I-42". This was after former NCDOT Chief Engineer Tim Little told the US-70 Corridor Commission that FHWA had given it's approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42. I suspect this is another case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.

WashuOtaku noted upthread that NCDOT is planning to seek approval to re-route US-264 onto it's old alignment between Saratoga and Greenville, so that also may be the reason for the delay in signing I-587.

If Boyette really is unaware that FHWA has already approved I-587 while other NCDOT employees were and didn't tell him, then that's just embarrassing.

I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO.  Approval anticipated in January.  The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it.  Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)  The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.

See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf

Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?

[jdunlop]

I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO.  Approval anticipated in January.  The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it.  Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)  The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.

See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf

Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?

I didn’t doubt that you had heard somebody say “approved”.  I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.

I didn’t ask about the directionality of 587, I’ll see what I can find on our server about plans.

[LM117]

I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO.  Approval anticipated in January.  The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it.  Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)  The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.

See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf

Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?

I didn’t doubt that you had heard somebody say “approved”.  I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.

It's cool. No biggie.

I didn’t ask about the directionality of 587, I’ll see what I can find on our server about plans.

Sounds like a plan!

(Pun may or may not be intended...)

[jdunlop]

I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO.  Approval anticipated in January.  The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it.  Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)  The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.

See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf

Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?

I didn’t doubt that you had heard somebody say “approved”.  I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.

It's cool. No biggie.

I didn’t ask about the directionality of 587, I’ll see what I can find on our server about plans.

Sounds like a plan!

(Pun may or may not be intended...)

And those plans say...

East-West.

[tolbs17]

I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO.  Approval anticipated in January.  The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it.  Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)  The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.

See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf

Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?

I didn’t doubt that you had heard somebody say “approved”.  I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.

It's cool. No biggie.

I didn’t ask about the directionality of 587, I’ll see what I can find on our server about plans.

Sounds like a plan!

(Pun may or may not be intended...)

And those plans say...

East-West.

Source????!!!

[LM117]

I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO.  Approval anticipated in January.  The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it.  Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)  The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.

See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf

Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?

I didn’t doubt that you had heard somebody say “approved”.  I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.

It's cool. No biggie.

I didn’t ask about the directionality of 587, I’ll see what I can find on our server about plans.

Sounds like a plan!

(Pun may or may not be intended...)

And those plans say...

East-West.

That's a welcome change! Thanks!

[snowc]

I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO.  Approval anticipated in January.  The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it.  Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)  The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.

See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf

Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?

I didn’t doubt that you had heard somebody say “approved”.  I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.

It's cool. No biggie.

I didn’t ask about the directionality of 587, I’ll see what I can find on our server about plans.

Sounds like a plan!

(Pun may or may not be intended...)

And those plans say...

East-West.

Source????!!!

I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.

[jdunlop]

And those plans say...

East-West.

Source????!!!

I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.

I looked at the signing plans on our server, as I indicated I would.

[tolbs17]

And those plans say...

East-West.

Source????!!!

I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.

I looked at the signing plans on our server, as I indicated I would.

So it's still signed North/South?

[sprjus4]

And those plans say...

East-West.

Source????!!!

I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.

I looked at the signing plans on our server, as I indicated I would.

So it's still signed North/South?

[tolbs17]

And those plans say...

East-West.

Source????!!!

I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.

I looked at the signing plans on our server, as I indicated I would.

So it's still signed North/South?

It sounded like jdunlop said he was being sarcastic.

[bob7374]

I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO.  Approval anticipated in January.  The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it.  Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)  The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.

See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf

Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?

I didn’t doubt that you had heard somebody say “approved”.  I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.

It's cool. No biggie.

I didn’t ask about the directionality of 587, I’ll see what I can find on our server about plans.

Sounds like a plan!

(Pun may or may not be intended...)

And those plans say...

East-West.

That's a welcome change! Thanks!

Are those plans tied to a specific I-587 sign contract or will they be added to another project's plans? Would the installing of new exit numbers be part of this project?

[jdunlop]

I-6035; I presume (without asking anybody involved) that it’ll be let once the official approval by FHWA ‘is granted.  The first part of 6035 was the resurfacing Nd shoulder improvements.

The exits will be renumbered.  For example, the NC 42 exit will go from 41 to 20.

[tolbs17]

I-6035; I presume (without asking anybody involved) that it’ll be let once the official approval by FHWA ‘is granted.  The first part of 6035 was the resurfacing Nd shoulder improvements.

The exits will be renumbered.  For example, the NC 42 exit will go from 41 to 20.

So I-587 will take over the exit numbers and not I-795. That's great to hear.

[tolbs17]

Booyah!!! Exciting news! Now that leaves the section west of I-95 to Zebulon. 

https://wcti12.com/news/local/us-264-in-eastern-north-carolina-earns-interstate-designation

[LM117]

I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it.  However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet.  (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)

Press release today from NCDOT announcing FHWA approval. I-587 shields will go up between I-95 and Greenville sometime next year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-16-i-587-designation-approved.aspx

[kernals12]

It's such a beautiful moment when a highway graduates to become an interstate, I'm not crying, you're crying

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't like the idea of designating Interstate 587 without it connecting with mainline Interstate 87 (which doesn't make it to the US 64/264 junction in Zebulon yet). I feel the same way about Interstate 369 in Texarkana, TX.

[wdcrft63]

I don't like the idea of designating Interstate 587 without it connecting with mainline Interstate 87 (which doesn't make it to the US 64/264 junction in Zebulon yet). I feel the same way about Interstate 369 in Texarkana, TX.

Incomplete 2di's like I-49 and I-69 have gaps; there's no reason an incomplete 3di can't have gaps as well. If there was no plan to connect I-587 to I-87 you would have a good point.

[LM117]

I don't like the idea of designating Interstate 587 without it connecting with mainline Interstate 87 (which doesn't make it to the US 64/264 junction in Zebulon yet). I feel the same way about Interstate 369 in Texarkana, TX.

Incomplete 2di's like I-49 and I-69 have gaps; there's no reason an incomplete 3di can't have gaps as well. If there was no plan to connect I-587 to I-87 you would have a good point.

The irony is that when Greenville first started lobbying for an interstate nearly 10 years ago, they only wanted an interstate connection to I-95. Upgrading the rest of the freeway to Zebulon wasn't a priority for them. They're obviously not opposed to upgrading the rest of the corridor, but they believed that connecting to I-95 was all they needed and were willing to settle for that. They see the rest of the corridor to Zebulon (and Raleigh via I-87) as a bonus that NCDOT threw in.

That said, I'm glad things turned out like it did. It would've seemed half-assed for an interstate to go from Greenville to I-95 and end there permanently, instead of finishing the job to Zebulon.

[vdeane]

I don't like the idea of designating Interstate 587 without it connecting with mainline Interstate 87 (which doesn't make it to the US 64/264 junction in Zebulon yet). I feel the same way about Interstate 369 in Texarkana, TX.

Incomplete 2di's like I-49 and I-69 have gaps; there's no reason an incomplete 3di can't have gaps as well. If there was no plan to connect I-587 to I-87 you would have a good point.

When it comes to on the ground infrastructure, there's not much difference between a gap that is planned to be filled at some point in the distant future, a gap that was planned to be filled in but got cancelled, and a gap with no plan to fill in at all.  In fact, if I had my way, these gaps wouldn't be allowed; interstates would need to be added in much more usable chunks, such that added sections would have independent utility and it wouldn't matter much if the funding for the remaining pieces falls through or whatnot.

[sprjus4]

^ I-587 between Greenville and I-95 has independent utility.

[vdeane]

^ I-587 between Greenville and I-95 has independent utility.

I guess you missed the part where I said "these gaps wouldn't be allowed".  I'd also require all new interstate segments to be contiguous.  No gaps allowed.  And that includes 3di routes connecting to their parent.

[wdcrft63]

^ I-587 between Greenville and I-95 has independent utility.

I guess you missed the part where I said "these gaps wouldn't be allowed".  I'd also require all new interstate segments to be contiguous.  No gaps allowed.  And that includes 3di routes connecting to their parent.

So... if it were up to you none of the newer sections of I-69 could be signed since there's no connection yet to the original I-69, and none of the newer sections of I-49 could be signed until the gap inside Shreveport is built. This is a lonely position you have.