Print

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

[tolbs17]

Is I-587 still a N-S route?

No changes have been made, so presumably yes. Hopefully by the time they sign it, it’ll be switched.

We are SO apart from other states. Just saying.

[architect77]

This is interesting.  Another NC Interstate designated to a US Route freeway.  I am amazed just at how many interstates have been granted to the Tar Heel State.  I knew this one was going to be one eventually, but IMO I think that 587 is not the right number for it.  Heck an even number x87 would work being it connects with two other (or it will someday) interstates.

The interesting part is they moved over the existing US routes onto these freeways and now the move over seems irrelevant now.  The old roads being mostly alternate routes of it, could have been left as is and the new freeways could have been designated as interstates to the get go.  Now, we have the unnecessary concurrency.

VDOT did that with transferring VA 168 to VA 143.  It moved it on to I-64 only to have it decommissioned later so time and funds were wasted in altering an alignment to be later removed.  Yes, I know that NCDOT won't remove US 264 like VDOT did to truncating VA 168, but still its a waste. You now have the burden with extra money of adding new shields and all for that if they had known originally that it would be part of the interstate system, US 264 would have remained its surface road alignment.

Everyone must remember NCDOT's goal for 50 years has been to bring a modern, 4-lane. divided highway to within 10 miles of 96% of the population, one that is every evenly spread across the state in every nook and cranny.

So what you see is a continued realization of the state being crisscrossed by hundreds of 4-lane divided highways about every 20 miles statewide.

Therefore the interstates will differentiate those routes from all the 4-lane highways that ultimately will be the only road type practically in the future.

Agreed.  I've never liked the idea of having a useless overlap between a US route (or any other route) and an interstate when the original alignment is still available and decent.  IMO keep the overlaps to where necessary and don't have overlaps for the sake of having overlaps.

Wouldn't it be desirable to use the best and safest roadway for all routes when they have a chance to piggyback on a big interstate?  Wouldn't it be faster too?

[architect77]

I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc

180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.

A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.

idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though

As far as the number's concerned, NCDOT's original rationale was to not conflict with nearby state highway numbers.  The available even numbers without US route conflicts in either state, 42, 46, 54, and 56, were considered too close to the corridor -- and since most NC addresses on rural routes reference the highway number -- and the state didn't want to require address changes to a new state route number (they're supposedly a non-duplicating state, with a few hugely visible exceptions like NC 73 and US 74!!!!!), they chose a number (89) that at least wouldn't be intersected by the corridor (being in the western part of the state).  AASHTO's SCOURN rejected the argument about state conflict, but did accept the odd-numbered argument that the corridor essentially duplicated I-85's trajectory but farther east (even though the E-W distance is vastly greater than that of N-S).  But they substituted I-87 for some BS "historical" reason; also because the extant NY I-87 is considerably closer to the N-S longitudinal location of the NC/VA corridor than I-89.  Like I said earlier, a misinformed and convoluted rationale -- if they rejected the state-conflict argument, they should have selected an unused even number from the available pool cited above.  But it was a rainy Des Moines week; so they either elected to "rubber-stamp" the state's arguments with modifications just to get their collective asses home or they simply took advantage of being in a facility with a bar (cash or open) with dubious results.  Either way they could have done a lot better!

Growing up in a rural NC county beside Raleigh/Wake, every road had to be given a new, regular road name for 911 and emergency services to be able to locate those calling for help. So addresses that used to be " Joe Shmoe, Route 2, Box 58, Louisburg.... had to become Joe Schmoe, 3122 Ronald Tharrington Road, Louisburg, NC....

That was a big shift, but I too hate repeating interstate numbers, and I-87 could be another number or the state route numbers should have changed.

Our interstates unite the states tangibly more than anything else, and should unified without exceptions to the numbering.

[goobnav]

I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc

180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.

A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.

idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though

As far as the number's concerned, NCDOT's original rationale was to not conflict with nearby state highway numbers.  The available even numbers without US route conflicts in either state, 42, 46, 54, and 56, were considered too close to the corridor -- and since most NC addresses on rural routes reference the highway number -- and the state didn't want to require address changes to a new state route number (they're supposedly a non-duplicating state, with a few hugely visible exceptions like NC 73 and US 74!!!!!), they chose a number (89) that at least wouldn't be intersected by the corridor (being in the western part of the state).  AASHTO's SCOURN rejected the argument about state conflict, but did accept the odd-numbered argument that the corridor essentially duplicated I-85's trajectory but farther east (even though the E-W distance is vastly greater than that of N-S).  But they substituted I-87 for some BS "historical" reason; also because the extant NY I-87 is considerably closer to the N-S longitudinal location of the NC/VA corridor than I-89.  Like I said earlier, a misinformed and convoluted rationale -- if they rejected the state-conflict argument, they should have selected an unused even number from the available pool cited above.  But it was a rainy Des Moines week; so they either elected to "rubber-stamp" the state's arguments with modifications just to get their collective asses home or they simply took advantage of being in a facility with a bar (cash or open) with dubious results.  Either way they could have done a lot better!

Growing up in a rural NC county beside Raleigh/Wake, every road had to be given a new, regular road name for 911 and emergency services to be able to locate those calling for help. So addresses that used to be " Joe Shmoe, Route 2, Box 58, Louisburg.... had to become Joe Schmoe, 3122 Ronald Tharrington Road, Louisburg, NC....

That was a big shift, but I too hate repeating interstate numbers, and I-87 could be another number or the state route numbers should have changed.

Our interstates unite the states tangibly more than anything else, and should unified without exceptions to the numbering.

To be fair, NY has I-88, completely intrastate and, it is copied to I-88 in IL, also ironically intrastate.  I-87 in NC, if and when every completely signed would actually go to another state and possibly travel in that state.  As opposed going from NYC to the border with Canada and ending.

Plus it does fit the grid.  If there every was a far off thought of turning the GSP in Jersey and US 13 in Del and VA, the I-87's could possibly connect.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If they absolutely had to designate an odd number over the whole HPC #13 corridor that forms the basis for I-87, I-97 would be a far better choice re the grid, as most of the route is east of I-95.  And the possibility of the southern I-87 connecting to the northern one is at best a Fritzian pipedream.   

The whole notion of dismissing intrastate 1/2di's as unworthy of their numbers is both silly and gratuitous.  There were 10 of the things (not counting the suffixed branches at the time) within the original 1957-58 Interstate schematic; if there had been any rational objection it probably would have been raised at the time during the numbering selection process.  In any case, that concept should be moot at this point -- or at least relegated to fictional renumbering plans.     

[sprjus4]

^

The southern / western terminus of the corridor is between I-95 and I-85 in Raleigh.

I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.

[sparker]

^

The southern / western terminus of the corridor is between I-95 and I-85 in Raleigh.

I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.

But.  It.  Isn't. A. North. South. Route., SCOURN and NCDOT notwithstanding.  I can't stand unnecessary route duplication because someone has their collective heads up their aggregate asses!  NCDOT was overruled on the main point, but SCOURN compounded the problem.  They all FU'd; there are no excuses!  The saving grace is that the corridor won't be ready for prime time for decades; plenty of time for NC to plan and at least partially execute a real N-S route all the way down US 17, at which point the numbering can be adjusted accordingly. 

The one thing that has always pissed me off during my lifetime is deliberate stupidity!  And when one stupid move is compounded by another even more egregious, that's just too much for me to sit idly by without scathing comments.  Like the corridor; despise the number and the process by which it was imposed!

[Dirt Roads]

I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.

But.  It.  Isn't. A. North. South. Route., SCOURN and NCDOT notwithstanding.  <rant snipped>

I understand the argument here, but there is a big problem with our national definition of "route".  Moving this over to the dreaded I-87 rant-a-thon thread.

[The Ghostbuster]

If they built a freeway along existing US 13 between the US 264 northern loop of Greenville and terminated such freeway at existing US 64 north of Bethel, future Interstate 587 could reconnect with future Interstate 87. Of course, if that happened, the route number would likely have to be renumbered to 287.

[sparker]

If they built a freeway along existing US 13 between the US 264 northern loop of Greenville and terminated such freeway at existing US 64 north of Bethel, future Interstate 587 could reconnect with future Interstate 87. Of course, if that happened, the route number would likely have to be renumbered to 287.

Something tells me that if an Interstate-grade freeway were to follow NC 11 N-S through Greenville, it would likely extend south all the way to the I-42 alignment along US 70 near Kinston -- at which point, the numbering would be up in the air as to an x87 or x42 (from my previous posts, my position on anything related to the number "87" in NC can be readily discerned). 

[architect77]

^

The southern / western terminus of the corridor is between I-95 and I-85 in Raleigh.

I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.

But.  It.  Isn't. A. North. South. Route., SCOURN and NCDOT notwithstanding.  I can't stand unnecessary route duplication because someone has their collective heads up their aggregate asses!  NCDOT was overruled on the main point, but SCOURN compounded the problem.  They all FU'd; there are no excuses!  The saving grace is that the corridor won't be ready for prime time for decades; plenty of time for NC to plan and at least partially execute a real N-S route all the way down US 17, at which point the numbering can be adjusted accordingly. 

The one thing that has always pissed me off during my lifetime is deliberate stupidity!  And when one stupid move is compounded by another even more egregious, that's just too much for me to sit idly by without scathing comments.  Like the corridor; despise the number and the process by which it was imposed!

I'll bet that half of US drivers couldn't follow a route using the existing shields and signs existing today.

I'll bet that less than 10% of the population knows that interstate's numbers have additional meaning about their location, direction and purpose.

I'll bet the only 1% can correctly translate the info that the intestate number is providing.

In other worlds, it's too much effort for something that goes un-noticed by 95% of the population.

Just identify the road with a symbol and say the highway formerly called I-87  like Prince had to do.

[LM117]

A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx

This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx

[sprjus4]

A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx

This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx

The contractor, S.T. Wooten Corporation of Wilson, started construction in May 2020.

May 2020? I recall this project being under construction when I drove along the corridor back in December 2019.

[tolbs17]

A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx

This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx

Can I-587 be signed on it yet?

[sprjus4]

A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx

This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx

Can I-587 be signed on it yet?

Theoretically, NCDOT could now request approval from the FHWA to designate the portion of US-264 between I-95 and NC-11 Bypass as Interstate 587 now that the portion east of I-95 has been upgraded to interstate standards.

[tolbs17]

A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx

This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx

Can I-587 be signed on it yet?

Theoretically, NCDOT could now request approval from the FHWA to designate the portion of US-264 between I-95 and NC-11 Bypass as Interstate 587 now that the portion east of I-95 has been upgraded to interstate standards.

They should do that. It requires exit number and signage modification though.

Here, and many other locations, will need I-587 shields (or leave a space for them).

I really wanted US-264 to go back on its original route so they are not so gung-ho with routes.

[sprjus4]

They should do that. It requires exit number and signage modification though.

It could, again in theory, be posted without immediate changes, similar to how I-87 was posted outside of Raleigh for a couple years before actual signage and exit numbers were change. Given the current plans  , exit numbers would go from Exit 1 at the NC-11 Bypass to Exit 35 at I-95.

Here, and many other locations, will need I-587 shields (or leave a space for them).

Those signs would likely be replaced in a future contract depending on whenever they approve I-587 postings. Look at US-70, it meets interstate standards connecting to I-40, though they are holding off on signing it as I-42, also a similar situation with the Goldsboro Bypass.

[tolbs17]

They should do that. It requires exit number and signage modification though.

It could, again in theory, be posted without immediate changes, similar to how I-87 was posted outside of Raleigh for a couple years before actual signage and exit numbers were change. Given the current plans  , exit numbers would go from Exit 1 at the NC-11 Bypass to Exit 35 at I-95.

Here, and many other locations, will need I-587 shields (or leave a space for them).

Those signs would likely be replaced in a future contract depending on whenever they approve I-587 postings. Look at US-70, it meets interstate standards connecting to I-40, though they are holding off on signing it as I-42, also a similar situation with the Goldsboro Bypass.

So, I guess they are waiting for the part from Zebulon to I-95 being upgraded?

[sprjus4]

So, I guess they are waiting for the part from Zebulon to I-95 being upgraded?

I'm not sure what NCDOT's plans for signing I-587 are.

[tolbs17]

So, I guess they are waiting for the part from Zebulon to I-95 being upgraded?

I'm not sure what NCDOT's plans for signing I-587 are.

What I really want them to do is sign I-587 an east-west route and move US-264 back on its original alignment.

https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html

This shows the exit list and how they will be done.

[tolbs17]

http://prntscr.com/10qe0cd

What is this extra space. Is a 3rd lane going there?

[bob7374]

With the news that work to upgrade US 264 to Interstate standards in Greene and Pitt Counties has been completed (and therefore, most of the route is complete), I have finally created a standalone page for Future I-587 on my NC Future Interstates site: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html

I've added a few photos and a map of the corridor and plan more additions (and hopefully more news about the route) in the future.

[tolbs17]

The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.

[snowc]

The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The extension has hardly any shoulders at all. That's why the highway is not signed.

[sprjus4]

The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The extension has hardly any shoulders at all. That's why the highway is not signed.

That's not the area in question?