Print

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

[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.

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.

It's better than what happened in NY with I-86, where there's the main segment west of US 220 and a short section east of Binghamton that was only designated because NYSDOT got tired of having to put back the sign covers, and will probably not connect in the foreseeable future, if ever.

Or I-74, which exists as two separate interstates because the portion connecting them will never be built.

I-587 will also lead to a situation where there will be no satisfactory way to deal with I-795.  Either it will have to have an otherwise pointless overlap (another no-no in my book) to meet its parent or it would be truncated and orphaned.

What's the point of even having a numbering system at all if it's disordered basically all the time because of stalled and cancelled projects?  I like my route systems to be neat and tidy (along with everything else in life).

[ahj2000]

^ 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.

It's better than what happened in NY with I-86, where there's the main segment west of US 220 and a short section east of Binghamton that was only designated because NYSDOT got tired of having to put back the sign covers, and will probably not connect in the foreseeable future, if ever.

Or I-74, which exists as two separate interstates because the portion connecting them will never be built.

I-587 will also lead to a situation where there will be no satisfactory way to deal with I-795.  Either it will have to have an otherwise pointless overlap (another no-no in my book) to meet its parent or it would be truncated and orphaned.

What's the point of even having a numbering system at all if it's disordered basically all the time because of stalled and cancelled projects?  I like my route systems to be neat and tidy (along with everything else in life).

I don’t love your position, but ultimately to fix 795 you could make it an X40 once it connects down to I 40.
There are always going to be gaps.
Parent-child gaps are a sign that the interstate network is growing—a good thing. Permanent ones should be avoided, sure, but to say that they should never exist is a bit over the top

[vdeane]

Unfortunately, "temporary" often has a habit of becoming "indefinite" or even "permanent", especially when we're dealing with 50 years to complete an interstate (as is the norm these days).  I would also think that the distinction would tend to lose meaning over such long timescales.  If I'm Joe Public navigating around the country, I care about what exists now, maybe what will exist in the next ~5 years or so (maybe 10 if we're being generous), but not what will exist 50 years from now.

Maybe I'd feel differently if the gaps in the newly proposed interstates didn't tend to last as long as they do.

[wdcrft63]

Unfortunately, "temporary" often has a habit of becoming "indefinite" or even "permanent", especially when we're dealing with 50 years to complete an interstate (as is the norm these days).  I would also think that the distinction would tend to lose meaning over such long timescales.  If I'm Joe Public navigating around the country, I care about what exists now, maybe what will exist in the next ~5 years or so (maybe 10 if we're being generous), but not what will exist 50 years from now.

Maybe I'd feel differently if the gaps in the newly proposed interstates didn't tend to last as long as they do.

I-49 and I-69 have some huge gaps that are probably going to persist for a long time, providing plenty of ammunition for your argument. In the case of I-587 I don't think we'll have to wait very long for the Zebulon-Wilson gap to be closed.

As for I-795, I assume there will be the overlap with I-587 with Wilson. Goldsboro wants its connection to I-95 just like Greenville does.

[LM117]

As for I-795, I assume there will be the overlap with I-587 with Wilson. Goldsboro wants its connection to I-95 just like Greenville does.

Yep, the overlap is staying. Plus, I-795's extension to I-40 was specifically written into the FAST Act with the I-795 designation, so there's no way to change the number at this point. I think the number is just fine as it is anyway, given that it's purpose is to create a shortcut between I-95 and Wilmington and vice-versa.

[tolbs17]

Anybody has details of when the I-587 exit numbers and signage are supposed to go up like what month and everything?

The Wesley Church Rd exit sign is still missing here.

[bob7374]

Anybody has details of when the I-587 exit numbers and signage are supposed to go up like what month and everything?

The Wesley Church Rd exit sign is still missing here.

I haven't heard anything. NCDOT was waiting for their application to move US 264 back to part of its original alignment from AASHTO before designing the new exit signs. Don't know if the AASHTO Committee met in the fall, yet approved the application. I am sure NCDOT will let the officials in Greenville know when the signs are about to be put up and that news will make it quickly to the local media.

[tolbs17]

I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.

[BlueOutback7]

When is I-587 in North Carolina going to be signposted? I know that NCDOT received approval, but is it happening soon?

[sprjus4]

I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.

That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.

[tolbs17]

I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.

That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.

Yes, it's up to interstate standards, but the condition that it's in warrants a resurfacing badly.

[tolbs17]

As seen in pages 13 and 14. US-264 will be relocated.

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=21357

[bob7374]

I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.

That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.

Yes, it's up to interstate standards, but the condition that it's in warrants a resurfacing badly.

NCDOT may have been listening. They have added 3 pavement rehabilitation projects along US 264/Future I-587 in Wilson County as part of their January additions to the current STIP 2020-2029,* and they are to start this year (FY 2022). The first, HI-0006 is for 7 miles between I-795 and the Toisnot Swamp (an I-795 pavement rehab project, I-5818 is listed as under construction), the second, HI-0007 is for 8.3 miles between Toisnot Swamp and the Greene County line, the third, HI-0015 is for the 4.6 miles of US 264 in Wilson County west of I-95. The projects are listed on p. 99/435 in the new edition of the current STIP is available at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf

*Perhaps due to Covid, NCDOT's next STIP will not be 2022-2031, the typical two-year interval, but 2024-2033. The Draft of which will be published this fall.

[cowboy_wilhelm]

I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.

That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.

Yes, it's up to interstate standards, but the condition that it's in warrants a resurfacing badly.

NCDOT may have been listening. They have added 3 pavement rehabilitation projects along US 264/Future I-587 in Wilson County as part of their January additions to the current STIP 2020-2029,* and they are to start this year (FY 2022). The first, HI-0006 is for 7 miles between I-795 and the Toisnot Swamp (an I-795 pavement rehab project, I-5818 is already underway), the second, HI-0007 is for 8.3 miles between Toisnot Swamp and the Greene County line, the third, HI-0015 is for the 4.6 miles of US 264 in Wilson County west of I-95. The projects are listed on p. 99/435 in the new edition of the current STIP is available at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf

*Perhaps due to Covid, NCDOT's next STIP will not be 2022-2031, the typical two-year interval, but 2024-2033. The Draft of which will be published this fall.

The "HI" (interstate maintenance) suffix in the project identification appears to be new. Typically the pavement rehabilitation projects have been lumped in with the other "I" (interstate) projects. "HE" (economic development) is a recent addition too. I wonder if this somehow bypasses the project prioritization process (if maintenance projects even had to go through that step)? NCDOT has indicated no new projects will be added to the STIP this update cycle and only projects in the current STIP will be considered and reprioritized for the next STIP. However, projects are added all the time, so I'm not sure how effective the STI "law" is anyway.

[froggie]

As seen in pages 13 and 14. US-264 will be relocated.

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=21357

That does not mean it's happening.  That simply means that they support the application NCDOT (may or may not have) submitted.

[Mapmikey]

As seen in pages 13 and 14. US-264 will be relocated.

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=21357

That does not mean it's happening.  That simply means that they support the application NCDOT (may or may not have) submitted.

It seems to me NCDOT should also change what would be the remaining US 264 ALT to US 264 Business for Greenville.

[tolbs17]

As seen in pages 13 and 14. US-264 will be relocated.

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=21357

That does not mean it's happening.  That simply means that they support the application NCDOT (may or may not have) submitted.

It seems to me NCDOT should also change what would be the remaining US 264 ALT to US 264 Business for Greenville.

Yes, since it's only one city, US-264 ALT needs to be changed to US-264 business.

[LM117]

I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.

That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.

Yes, it's up to interstate standards, but the condition that it's in warrants a resurfacing badly.

NCDOT may have been listening. They have added 3 pavement rehabilitation projects along US 264/Future I-587 in Wilson County as part of their January additions to the current STIP 2020-2029,* and they are to start this year (FY 2022). The first, HI-0006 is for 7 miles between I-795 and the Toisnot Swamp (an I-795 pavement rehab project, I-5818 is already underway), the second, HI-0007 is for 8.3 miles between Toisnot Swamp and the Greene County line, the third, HI-0015 is for the 4.6 miles of US 264 in Wilson County west of I-95. The projects are listed on p. 99/435 in the new edition of the current STIP is available at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf

*Perhaps due to Covid, NCDOT's next STIP will not be 2022-2031, the typical two-year interval, but 2024-2033. The Draft of which will be published this fall.

I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.

Google Maps has new Streetview images dated January 2022 of the 795/264 overlap, and it doesn't look bad to me. Based on November 2021 images, I-795 south of 264 doesn't look bad, either.

[Dirt Roads]

I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.

That's OK.  Everyone is confused because the upcoming numbering changes.  But this is the section of I-795 concurrent with US-264, which will be concurrent with I-587 whenever NCDOT gets around to posting the new signage.  Right now, NCDOT refers to that stretch as I-795 instead of US-264 because you-know-what.  The adjacent section of I-795 heading southward to Goldsboro has indeed been repaved in recent years.

[LM117]

I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.

That's OK.  Everyone is confused because the upcoming numbering changes.  But this is the section of I-795 concurrent with US-264, which will be concurrent with I-587 whenever NCDOT gets around to posting the new signage.

I'm aware of that. I just thought that the 795/264 overlap had been repaved recently as well, and based on it's appearance on Google Streetview from last month, it looks like that was the case. It just seems like a waste of money to repave the overlap when it was already done less than 5 years ago.

[cowboy_wilhelm]

I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.

That's OK.  Everyone is confused because the upcoming numbering changes.  But this is the section of I-795 concurrent with US-264, which will be concurrent with I-587 whenever NCDOT gets around to posting the new signage.

I'm aware of that. I just thought that the 795/264 overlap had been repaved recently as well, and based on it's appearance on Google Streetview from last month, it looks like that was the case. It just seems like a waste of money to repave the overlap when it was already done less than 5 years ago.

Meanwhile, in western North Carolina...

I-26
I-40
U.S. 74

[LM117]

I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.

That's OK.  Everyone is confused because the upcoming numbering changes.  But this is the section of I-795 concurrent with US-264, which will be concurrent with I-587 whenever NCDOT gets around to posting the new signage.

I'm aware of that. I just thought that the 795/264 overlap had been repaved recently as well, and based on it's appearance on Google Streetview from last month, it looks like that was the case. It just seems like a waste of money to repave the overlap when it was already done less than 5 years ago.

Meanwhile, in western North Carolina...

I-26
I-40
U.S. 74

Looks about right.

[bob7374]

As posted in the North Carolina thread, AASHTO's US Route Numbering Committee approvals from its Fall 2021 meeting have finally been published and include the removal of US 264 from what will become I-587 east of Wilson and its designating of current US 264 Alt. as US 264. NCDOT can now, if it hasn't already, finalize the signing plans, including new exit numbers for I-587, from I-95 to Greenville. Hopefully the project can be completed by the end of the year. The applications are at:
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2022/02/Final-Report-USRN-Application-Results-Fall-2021.pdf

[tolbs17]

If they have not released signing plans yet then I feel like they are trying to wait for the Zebulon to Wilson part to be upgraded to interstate standards so it can be signed I-587 altogether.

But that's going to require the part from Wendell to Zebulon to be upgraded to interstate standards (there is a rehabilitation project for 2024 but rehabilitation projects are not the same as upgrading a freeway to interstate standards), and there is no set date of when that will happen. NCDOT plans to widen that part to 6 lanes, (I think they should just widen it to 8 altogether since traffic will just rise because that project got delayed twice already) but there is no set date of when that will happen.

Shouldn't an interstate spur connect to its parent before it can get officially signed? Otherwise I feel like they are just double-crossing us.

And for that reason, I was expecting I-595 to be signed first before I-587 can takeover.....

[sprjus4]

^ I-587 is going to be signed between I-95 and Greenville in 2022.