News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)

Started by Interstate 69 Fan, November 15, 2016, 07:17:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2016, 05:05:41 PM
I dislike the idea of signing future Interstates as state routes first. But that's just my opinion.
Better than putting US routes on the freeway.  Then you get a useless concurrency.  Of course, for I-587, that useless concurrency is already guaranteed thanks to the existing numbering, but it should be avoided where possible.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


wdcrft63

Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2016, 05:47:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2016, 05:05:41 PM
I dislike the idea of signing future Interstates as state routes first. But that's just my opinion.
Better than putting US routes on the freeway.  Then you get a useless concurrency.  Of course, for I-587, that useless concurrency is already guaranteed thanks to the existing numbering, but it should be avoided where possible.
Don't assume that a Route Change notice will lead to actual signage on the road. For example, NCDOT did a Route Change a couple of years back to assign the number NC 555 to the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville, but this number has never appeared on the road. I don't think anyone is going to be seeing NC 587 signs on US 264.

Mapmikey

Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 05, 2016, 06:49:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2016, 05:47:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2016, 05:05:41 PM
I dislike the idea of signing future Interstates as state routes first. But that's just my opinion.
Better than putting US routes on the freeway.  Then you get a useless concurrency.  Of course, for I-587, that useless concurrency is already guaranteed thanks to the existing numbering, but it should be avoided where possible.
Don't assume that a Route Change notice will lead to actual signage on the road. For example, NCDOT did a Route Change a couple of years back to assign the number NC 555 to the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville, but this number has never appeared on the road. I don't think anyone is going to be seeing NC 587 signs on US 264.

There was a request to add NC 555, not an actual route change.  The link appeared in the 'Proposed Route Changes' section.  Its disappearance suggests it may have been turned down.

The request is still findable on Google: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Request%20Form%20140516%20SIGNED.pdf

NC 472 disappeared at the same time...

Henry

At least this will be a more plausible example than the pseudo expressway in Kingston, NY. IMO, it's just as bad as I-180 in Cheyenne. :pan:
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

The Ghostbuster

I agree with Henry. Interstate 180 in Cheyenne should've just been designated: Business Loop Interstate 25, U.S. Highway 85 and U.S. Highway 87 Business. Existing Interstate 587 in Kingston NY, should just be NY 28.

adventurernumber1

I have advocated the idea of instead of numbering the southern I-87 corridor as Interstate 87, numbering it as Interstate 46. See the Interstate 87 thread to see my detailed explanation. So, as a result of that idea, I would advocate numbering the US 264 corridor (future I-587) as an odd I-x46, such as something like an Interstate 546.


However, it looks like I-87 and I-587 will be here to stay, regardless of how much we fantasize of other possibilities for numbering. Even with I-87, I'm not sure that I-587 is the best numbering for this 3di, since there is already one in New York - this isn't really a problem in my opinion, but I'd say they just should have gone with a different odd first digit.
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

The Ghostbuster

There isn't a State Highway 187 in North Carolina. They could have used that number. Also the 387 number was available. Alas, 587 it will be.

Interstate 69 Fan

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 12, 2017, 05:37:00 PM
There isn't a State Highway 187 in North Carolina. They could have used that number. Also the 387 number was available. Alas, 587 it will be.
What about 787? Or 987?
Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

jwolfer

Sort of like I-516 in Savannah shy did they not use 116.

Or 110 in Pensacola, since it is so close to Biloxi's version of 110. I know its another state but there all all the other odd x10s available

LGMS428


LM117

Anybody know if "Future I-587" signs have been posted along US-264 yet? :hmmm:
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

NJRoadfan

There aren't even signs for Future I-87 up. At this rate NCDOT's "Future" sign budget is exceeding that of some other state's entire DOTs :P.

LM117

Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 04, 2017, 03:01:31 PM
There aren't even signs for Future I-87 up.

"Future I-87" signs started going up along US-17 last October. There may also be signs on US-64 east of Rocky Mount.

http://wtkr.com/2016/10/24/governor-mccrory-to-unveil-new-i-87-sign/
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

slorydn1

Quote from: LM117 on February 04, 2017, 10:21:45 AM
Anybody know if "Future I-587" signs have been posted along US-264 yet? :hmmm:

My wife wants to head up to Greenville sometime this week to check out our son's new place. If we go I'll run up to 264 and check.
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

roadman65

Quote from: Mapmikey on November 17, 2016, 01:26:16 PM
North Carolina has a long history of returning US routes from interstate overlays...

The ones people here are most familiar with:  US 117 and I-795; I-440 and US 70-401; US 220 through Ellerbe

There was also a substantial return for US 70 (Greensboro to Hillsborough)
US 64 Conover to Statesville
US 29 on Bypasses of both Charlotte and Salisbury
Virginia also moved back US 13 to its old alignment where it used to be on I-64 from Bowers Hill to the Northhampton Blvd. Interchange.  Military Highway was US 13 Business during the time frame as well.

US 44 in Connecticut was moved back from a freeway to its original alignment east of Hartford and was US 44 Alternate for a while.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

CanesFan27

Quote from: LM117 on February 04, 2017, 10:21:45 AM
Anybody know if "Future I-587" signs have been posted along US-264 yet? :hmmm:

As of today - they are not.

The Ghostbuster

Which do you think will be signposted first, Interstate 87 or Interstate 587?

sparker

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2017, 06:41:28 PM
Which do you think will be signposted first, Interstate 87 or Interstate 587?

As I've said in another thread, it's likely NCDOT will place "Future" signage on both routes, likely at approximately the same time.  As far as actual shields, it'll depend on the schedule for upgrades.  My bet would be on mainline 87, as the portion from US 258 at Tarboro out to US 17 is already at Interstate standards (last to be constructed); it's just the earlier portion between Knightsdale and Tarboro that's substandard.  If the entire section from Raleigh to Williamston receives upgrades, it'll be a candidate for full signage -- as a viable SIU terminating at a major NHS route -- regardless of any progress (or lack thereof) along US 17 to the north.

LM117

Quote from: sparker on February 27, 2017, 08:45:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2017, 06:41:28 PM
Which do you think will be signposted first, Interstate 87 or Interstate 587?

As I've said in another thread, it's likely NCDOT will place "Future" signage on both routes, likely at approximately the same time.  As far as actual shields, it'll depend on the schedule for upgrades.  My bet would be on mainline 87, as the portion from US 258 at Tarboro out to US 17 is already at Interstate standards (last to be constructed); it's just the earlier portion between Knightsdale and Tarboro that's substandard.  If the entire section from Raleigh to Williamston receives upgrades, it'll be a candidate for full signage -- as a viable SIU terminating at a major NHS route -- regardless of any progress (or lack thereof) along US 17 to the north.

Future I-87 BGS signs have already started going up on US-64 east of Rocky Mount and along US-17. Future I-587 signs will probably start going up on US-264 sometime in the coming spring or summer.

As for actual I-87 shields, NCDOT could go ahead and send a request to AASHTO & FHWA to decommission I-495/Future I-495 from US-64 between I-440 and I-95, while at the same time, requesting permission to sign the Knightdale Bypass between I-440 and I-540 as I-87.

The small stretch of I-440 between what's now I-495 and I-40 may also be decommissioned in favor of I-87, since I-87 is supposed to end at I-40 instead of I-440.

Another possibility is that once NCDOT widens the shoulders on US-264 between the Wilson/Greene County line and Exit 73 in Greenville, NCDOT could also seek approval to put up I-587 shields between Greenville and I-95 in Wilson. The remainder of the corridor between I-95 and Zebulon is gonna need more than shoulder widening to bring US-264 to interstate standards.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

The Ghostbuster

Let me clarify: When I asked which would be signposted first, I meant actual signs, not future signs. Preferably I think Interstate 87 should be signed first, when upgrades are complete of course.

Avalanchez71


wdcrft63

I don't see any need to decommission I-440 between the present I-495 and I-40. As a loop route, it makes sense that I-440 should connect to I-40 at both ends.

sparker

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 28, 2017, 06:02:56 PM
They should have sought for I-40N.

Texas and its internal proclivities notwithstanding, I don't think that NCDOT, AASHTO, or FHWA would ever entertain the notion of a suffixed route that wasn't an actual route split.  And the fact that I-42 is commissioned right down the center of the two potential "branches" would likely end such a discussion before it began. 

The Ghostbuster

There is no need to bring back any more suffix Interstates, thank you very much. Interstates 35E and 35W in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and in Dallas-Fort Worth should have stayed the only ones left in the entire system.

LM117

I'm fairly certain Avalanchez71's post about I-40N was sarcasm. Relax.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sparker

 :rolleyes:
Quote from: LM117 on March 01, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
I'm fairly certain Avalanchez71's post about I-40N was sarcasm. Relax.

I got that.  It's just that with the 89/87 debacle -- among others -- that I sure wouldn't put it past NCDOT to pull another weird-ass designation out of a hat (or other locations)! :rolleyes:



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.