Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)

[tolbs17]

Is this I-587 shield on Google Maps new or has it been here a while and I'm just now noticing? Browsing the corridor, this is the only I-587 shield I have found.

It's been there for awhile and it looks like Google did not modify or fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass or sign NC 11 bypass on it. Maybe I should tell them to correct that error.

[sprjus4]

fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass

Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.

[vdeane]

fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass

Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.

But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?

[sprjus4]

fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass

Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.

But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?

The Monroe Expressway outside Charlotte and All American Freeway outside Fayetteville are like that as well, and there's been no issue with them as far as routing goes.

They look off, but in reality do not affect routing. It's surprising that they actually added exit numbers to the NC-11 Bypass as well on Google.

[tolbs17]

fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass

Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.

But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?

The Monroe Expressway outside Charlotte and All American Freeway outside Fayetteville are like that as well, and there's been no issue with them as far as routing goes.

They look off, but in reality do not affect routing. It's surprising that they actually added exit numbers to the NC-11 Bypass as well on Google.

Are white ramps better than the yellow?

[ozarkman417]

fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass

Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.

But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?

The Monroe Expressway outside Charlotte and All American Freeway outside Fayetteville are like that as well, and there's been no issue with them as far as routing goes.

They look off, but in reality do not affect routing. It's surprising that they actually added exit numbers to the NC-11 Bypass as well on Google.

Are white ramps better than the yellow?

It appears that the ramps are white when one or both of the subject roads have are labeled white (on the bypass and the freeways mentioned in the above post), though just about everywhere else it's colored no matter what (except for when both roads are labeled white). One would ask Google what the criteria for a white exit ramp is.

[sprjus4]

fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass

Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.

But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?

The Monroe Expressway outside Charlotte and All American Freeway outside Fayetteville are like that as well, and there's been no issue with them as far as routing goes.

They look off, but in reality do not affect routing. It's surprising that they actually added exit numbers to the NC-11 Bypass as well on Google.

Are white ramps better than the yellow?

It appears that the ramps are white when one or both of the subject roads have are labeled white (on the bypass and the freeways mentioned in the above post), though just about everywhere else it's colored no matter what (except for when both roads are labeled white). One would ask Google what the criteria for a white exit ramp is.

That and it also might be when a road is designated with a route number or not. All of the examples I listed with white ramps both crossed a white cross road, and the mainline freeway did not have a route number marked.

Probably just automated.

Bryan Blvd in Greensboro is also like this, freeway marked but no route number. White ramps at crossroads.

[vdeane]

My understanding is that ramps were supposed to be colored to match the main road in the interchange and that the locations that don't are in error.  In any case, attention to cartographic detail is the sign of a good map, and I don't like how the online mapping sources increasingly eschew this.

[tolbs17]

My understanding is that ramps were supposed to be colored to match the main road in the interchange and that the locations that don't are in error.  In any case, attention to cartographic detail is the sign of a good map, and I don't like how the online mapping sources increasingly eschew this.

They probably did a lot better with older freeways when designing the ramps and accurately locating them. But nowadays, there are many errors.

[vdeane]

Not just the newer freeways.  Some of the inconsistencies with thing like how the end of a freeway is marked include roads that haven't changed in the entire time Google Maps has existed and which were previously done correctly.  Then there's the fact that every update to the symbology has made reading the maps harder, not easier.  If you ever get to look at older screenshots of Google Maps, note how much more contrast there used to be and how much more information was displayed.  Really the only good change to the cartography was when they started shading the areas with businesses (also when they briefly showed toll roads and differentiated between expressways and freeways, but both were short lived, and sadly the latter caused the end of the former, since they used very similar symbols).

[AcE_Wolf_287]

Could anyone explain why out of all the numbered they picked "I-587" ? I-87 in NY already has I-587 and why do we need another one for a different I-587 when there's 3 other numbers that aren't used by I-87 (NY)

[sparker]

Could anyone explain why out of all the numbered they picked "I-587" ? I-87 in NY already has I-587 and why do we need another one for a different I-587 when there's 3 other numbers that aren't used by I-87 (NY)

Each state can utilize the full set of 3di options for a particular trunk "base" number; of course, very few do (the closest would be the completed x90 set in NY state and the x05's in CA, technically only missing 705).  There are no requirements to use the lowest possible number; for some odd reason, the "5" prefix seems to be preferred by DOT's in numerous states, even where there's only one spur:  GA has 3 such designations: I-516, I-520, and I-575; the sole odd-prefixed x40 in AR is I-540, and the only spur of I-64/VA is I-564.  But it is certainly possible that with I-87 the connotation of the "187" number (penal code for murder in numerous jurisdictions!) has resulted in the avoidance of that number within both NC and NY/NJ.   

[sprjus4]

and the only spur of I-64/VA is I-564.

IIRC, today's I-464 linking I-64 and I-264 was originally supposed to be I-364.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Could anyone explain why out of all the numbered they picked "I-587" ? I-87 in NY already has I-587 and why do we need another one for a different I-587 when there's 3 other numbers that aren't used by I-87 (NY)

Each state can utilize the full set of 3di options for a particular trunk "base" number; of course, very few do (the closest would be the completed x90 set in NY state and the x05's in CA, technically only missing 705).  There are no requirements to use the lowest possible number; for some odd reason, the "5" prefix seems to be preferred by DOT's in numerous states, even where there's only one spur:  GA has 3 such designations: I-516, I-520, and I-575; the sole odd-prefixed x40 in AR is I-540, and the only spur of I-64/VA is I-564.  But it is certainly possible that with I-87 the connotation of the "187" number (penal code for murder in numerous jurisdictions!) has resulted in the avoidance of that number within both NC and NY/NJ.

187 is only the Penal Code for murder in the State of California.  However 187 is a slang reference to murder that originated in California, so it might have been a factor.

[Mapmikey]

I-587 was proposed as I-595 first.  Now, why 595?  No idea.

[LM117]

I-587 was proposed as I-595 first.  Now, why 595?  No idea.

IIRC, that was the plan before I-495 was replaced by I-87. Greenville had been pushing hard for US-264 to become an interstate since 2012.

[Mapmikey]

I-587 was proposed as I-595 first.  Now, why 595?  No idea.

IIRC, that was the plan before I-495 was replaced by I-87. Greenville had been pushing hard for US-264 to become an interstate since 2012.

I-595 would've only been from I-95 eastward, and predated the NCDOT request for I-87.  I was questioning why 595.

[LM117]

I-587 was proposed as I-595 first.  Now, why 595?  No idea.

IIRC, that was the plan before I-495 was replaced by I-87. Greenville had been pushing hard for US-264 to become an interstate since 2012.

I-595 would've only been from I-95 eastward, and predated the NCDOT request for I-87.  I was questioning why 595.

Ah, gotcha.

[AcE_Wolf_287]

Could anyone explain why out of all the numbered they picked "I-587" ? I-87 in NY already has I-587 and why do we need another one for a different I-587 when there's 3 other numbers that aren't used by I-87 (NY)

Each state can utilize the full set of 3di options for a particular trunk "base" number; of course, very few do (the closest would be the completed x90 set in NY state and the x05's in CA, technically only missing 705).  There are no requirements to use the lowest possible number; for some odd reason, the "5" prefix seems to be preferred by DOT's in numerous states, even where there's only one spur:  GA has 3 such designations: I-516, I-520, and I-575; the sole odd-prefixed x40 in AR is I-540, and the only spur of I-64/VA is I-564.  But it is certainly possible that with I-87 the connotation of the "187" number (penal code for murder in numerous jurisdictions!) has resulted in the avoidance of that number within both NC and NY/NJ.

and yea, the I-187 number was the original number for I-287 between i-95 in Rye and I-87/I-487 in Tarrytown, but there is still I-387 and I-987 that could've been used, like with the I-84's, they don't use any of the same 3di numbers... and with I-87 (NC) why was it numbered "I-87"? because NC's History and they love the number "87", most of the I-87 Proposed route would be West-East anyways...

[sprjus4]

The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.

The whole tying the number with history was more a "official"  thing just to give some "background"  to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.

[AcE_Wolf_287]

The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.

The whole tying the number with history was more a "official"  thing just to give some "background"  to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.

still, im probably gonna see what the official mileage west to east, and then south to north which one is longer, because i don't believe "I-87" was the right number for that road, "I-46" would've worked alot better but can't change the past

[sprjus4]

The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.

The whole tying the number with history was more a "official"  thing just to give some "background"  to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.

still, im probably gonna see what the official mileage west to east, and then south to north which one is longer, because i don't believe "I-87" was the right number for that road, "I-46" would've worked alot better but can't change the past

The route is more east-west than north-south.

One way to view it is you're going north or south into either state, and you're connecting to I-95 -north- from Raleigh, or I-95 -south- from Norfolk.

I-64 between Richmond and Norfolk is signed as east-west, but I've viewed it as a more north-south route for the purposes of connecting to I-95 -north-.

[sparker]

The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.

The whole tying the number with history was more a "official"  thing just to give some "background"  to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.

still, im probably gonna see what the official mileage west to east, and then south to north which one is longer, because i don't believe "I-87" was the right number for that road, "I-46" would've worked alot better but can't change the past

As I've speculated in the past, I-87 was possibly a byproduct of an open bar at the 2016 Des Moines SCOURN meeting!  It's a ludicrous choice, predicated upon a state error compounded by impaired (or non-existent) reasoning.  But at this juncture the only way it'll be remedied is if NCDOT seeks to designate an Interstate route over the rest of US 17 south of Williamston, at which point the E-W segment along US 64 could be split off from the N-S segment (I-97?) and given a grid-appropriate even number.  Given NC's proclivity for hatching new I-corridors, such a concept is not out of the realm of possibility.   

[AcE_Wolf_287]

The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.

The whole tying the number with history was more a "official"  thing just to give some "background"  to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.

still, im probably gonna see what the official mileage west to east, and then south to north which one is longer, because i don't believe "I-87" was the right number for that road, "I-46" would've worked alot better but can't change the past

As I've speculated in the past, I-87 was possibly a byproduct of an open bar at the 2016 Des Moines SCOURN meeting!  It's a ludicrous choice, predicated upon a state error compounded by impaired (or non-existent) reasoning.  But at this juncture the only way it'll be remedied is if NCDOT seeks to designate an Interstate route over the rest of US 17 south of Williamston, at which point the E-W segment along US 64 could be split off from the N-S segment (I-97?) and given a grid-appropriate even number.  Given NC's proclivity for hatching new I-corridors, such a concept is not out of the realm of possibility.

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

[sprjus4]

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.