North Carolina

[Revive 755]

One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.

Further proof this AASHTO committee must have access to some strong stuff.  I can think of many three digit spurs that are just as unlikely to be extended across a state line any decade soon such as I-380 in Iowa, I-555 in Arkansas, I-565 in Alabama, I-172 in Illinois, I-135 in Kansas, and I-176 in Pennsylvania.

And how is this not an alternative way to the Raleigh from I-95 in case of an incident on the future I-87? 

(Edited to fix bad typing)

[LM117]

But if the FHWA - who have actual criteria - says yes it's ok. then NC can resubmit and have that in documentation.

NCDOT had the same trouble with I-795 when AASHTO denied it the first time during the spring 2007 meeting, also for the same reasons IIRC. FHWA backed I-795 and AASHTO approved it later that year.

While Greenville doesn't have a military base like Goldsboro, it's population and regional significance should be enough to convince FHWA to approve it.

[LM117]

Further proof this AASHTO committee must have access to some strong stuff.  I can think of many three digit spurs that are just as unlikely to be extended across a state line any decade soon such as I-380 in Iowa, I-565 in Arkansas, I-172 in Illinois, I-135 in Kansas, and I-176 in Pennsylvania.

[english si]

You'd have thought AASHTO USRN delegates, of all people, would understand that 'Interstate' doesn't mean that the network's only job is to cross state lines. Especially as the states they are delegates from (VT, MS, MI, CO) have intrastate 3dis.
Region 1 Member: "The interstate system is intended to connect states"
Region 2 Member: "It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines"
Region 3 Member: "It does not connect to another state"
Region 4 Member: "Interstate system is intended to connect states"

You'd have thought that AASHTO USRN delegates, of all people, would understand that odd 3dis are meant to be spurs. Especially as 3 of the states they are delegates from (VT, MS, MI) have odd 3di spurs.
Region 1 Member: "this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass"
Region 2 Member: "This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur" <- hey this one understands spurs, but can't seem to read the map that NC would have sent
Region 3 Member: "is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route" (business routes are getting full blown Interstate Designations now in Michigan?)
Region 4 Member: "this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass."

Region 2's comment "It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need" is valid criticism, but then he goes and screws up by continuing "unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied." Are the rules of the Committee really the case that if delegates can not grasp the point of a designation then unless Congress say it's OK it must be denied???

I fully expect to see this submitted again and again until USRN approves it, or Congress goes over their heads. I'd imagine the NC delegate would have massively facepalmed at the behaviour of his co-delegates.

[froggie]

Despite the reasoning of the committee members that some on this thread are slamming, this is a valid denial.  Boiling it down, NCDOT jumped the gun.  US 264 is generally not up to Interstate standard (except the short leg that is already I-795), which is a grounds for denial.  And while we don't have access to the application NCDOT submitted, I can tell from the language used that they have not coordinated yet with FHWA (who has the ultimate say when it comes to Interstate routes).

In short, if the route was already up to Interstate standard, or had NCDOT coordinated better with FHWA before submitting their application, the result likely would have been different.

And regarding Revive755's comment about "if there's an incident", the type of incident that would cause such a shutdown is pretty rare.  Nevermind that there are at least 3 state routes and several secondary routes in the vicinity that could also be used as detour routes to spread the traffic around.  Simply speaking, such incident planning does not require another Interstate route to be designated.

[WashuOtaku]

I fully expect to see this submitted again and again until USRN approves it, or Congress goes over their heads. I'd imagine the NC delegate would have massively facepalmed at the behaviour of his co-delegates.

Honestly, maybe they simply don't see the need of an interstate designation there or as of yet.  I-87 is only a future designation at this time, I-795 exists, a lot still needs to be done along other sections and nobody willingly goes to Greenville.

[LM117]

Despite the reasoning of the committee members that some on this thread are slamming, this is a valid denial.  Boiling it down, NCDOT jumped the gun.  US 264 is generally not up to Interstate standard (except the short leg that is already I-795), which is a grounds for denial.  And while we don't have access to the application NCDOT submitted, I can tell from the language used that they have not coordinated yet with FHWA (who has the ultimate say when it comes to Interstate routes).

In short, if the route was already up to Interstate standard, or had NCDOT coordinated better with FHWA before submitting their application, the result likely would have been different.

As noted earlier, AASHTO seems to have their own selective set of criteria than that of FHWA. I agree that there's a good chance that FHWA will approve Future I-587 if/when NCDOT coordinates with them, which they may already be doing. While Greenville doesn't have a military base like Goldsboro, it's population and regional significance should be enough to qualify as a logical termini for I-587.

I'm not sure how US-264 being substandard (not by much) for most of it's length is grounds for denial of Future interstate status. US-52 being substandard between I-85 in Lexington and I-40 in Winston-Salem didn't prevent it from becoming Future I-285. There are many other examples.

[sparker]

Regardless of AASHTO USRN criteria (which does seem to be less than consistent between meeting iterations) or its rationale regarding what constitutes a viable Interstate route, it's likely that this matter will be "transferred" to the congressional arena -- particularly since Greenville and its associated interest groups are pressing not only an Interstate designation for US 264 but also for a N-S corridor as part of their "Quad East" omnibus concept.  Obviously now (late October of an election year) is not an optimal time for them to press the issue with their local representative(s); but once the dust has cleared I'd fully expect that next year's funding bill will have a "clustered" multiple-leg corridor concept as a new HPC, complete with numerical designations.  It's worked in the past and obviates the AASHTO "numbers game" -- which, given last year's convolutions re the eventual I-87 and I-42 corridors, would likely be an attractive option to local activists involved with this matter.

[CanesFan27]

Regardless of AASHTO USRN criteria (which does seem to be less than consistent between meeting iterations) or its rationale regarding what constitutes a viable Interstate route, it's likely that this matter will be "transferred" to the congressional arena -- particularly since Greenville and its associated interest groups are pressing not only an Interstate designation for US 264 but also for a N-S corridor as part of their "Quad East" omnibus concept.  Obviously now (late October of an election year) is not an optimal time for them to press the issue with their local representative(s); but once the dust has cleared I'd fully expect that next year's funding bill will have a "clustered" multiple-leg corridor concept as a new HPC, complete with numerical designations.  It's worked in the past and obviates the AASHTO "numbers game" -- which, given last year's convolutions re the eventual I-87 and I-42 corridors, would likely be an attractive option to local activists involved with this matter.

Which makes me ask - is AASHTO really necessary in approving numbers and applications.  Should the FHWA   take over the approval and numbering process altogether?

[LM117]

Regardless of AASHTO USRN criteria (which does seem to be less than consistent between meeting iterations) or its rationale regarding what constitutes a viable Interstate route, it's likely that this matter will be "transferred" to the congressional arena -- particularly since Greenville and its associated interest groups are pressing not only an Interstate designation for US 264 but also for a N-S corridor as part of their "Quad East" omnibus concept.  Obviously now (late October of an election year) is not an optimal time for them to press the issue with their local representative(s); but once the dust has cleared I'd fully expect that next year's funding bill will have a "clustered" multiple-leg corridor concept as a new HPC, complete with numerical designations.  It's worked in the past and obviates the AASHTO "numbers game" -- which, given last year's convolutions re the eventual I-87 and I-42 corridors, would likely be an attractive option to local activists involved with this matter.

Which makes me ask - is AASHTO really necessary in approving numbers and applications.  Should the FHWA   take over the approval and numbering process altogether?

They might as well. It seems redundant to have Interstate requests go through AASHTO when FHWA has the final say-so in the end anyway. FHWA also seems to be more competent at handling Interstate requests than AASHTO, who apparently doesn't pay all that much attention to their applications. However, I agree that it's possible NCDOT didn't coordinate with FHWA, in which case it would be their fault. It still doesn't change the fact that AASHTO's stated reasons for denial is just asinine.

"nor a spur"....really?

[hbelkins]

Regardless of AASHTO USRN criteria (which does seem to be less than consistent between meeting iterations) or its rationale regarding what constitutes a viable Interstate route, it's likely that this matter will be "transferred" to the congressional arena -- particularly since Greenville and its associated interest groups are pressing not only an Interstate designation for US 264 but also for a N-S corridor as part of their "Quad East" omnibus concept.  Obviously now (late October of an election year) is not an optimal time for them to press the issue with their local representative(s); but once the dust has cleared I'd fully expect that next year's funding bill will have a "clustered" multiple-leg corridor concept as a new HPC, complete with numerical designations.  It's worked in the past and obviates the AASHTO "numbers game" -- which, given last year's convolutions re the eventual I-87 and I-42 corridors, would likely be an attractive option to local activists involved with this matter.

Which makes me ask - is AASHTO really necessary in approving numbers and applications.  Should the FHWA   take over the approval and numbering process altogether?

They might as well. It seems redundant to have Interstate requests go through AASHTO when FHWA has the final say-so in the end anyway. FHWA also seems to be more competent at handling Interstate requests than AASHTO, who apparently doesn't pay all that much attention to their applications. However, I agree that it's possible NCDOT didn't coordinate with FHWA, in which case it would be their fault. It still doesn't change the fact that AASHTO's stated reasons for denial is just asinine.

"nor a spur"....really?

My guess -- and this is just a guess -- is that AASHTO, being a voluntary organization of state DOTs, is there as something of a referee or to work out a compromise if an interstate is going to cross state boundaries and two states can't agree on a number.

Two off-topic notes about the applications listed upthread -- first is that it seems to me that there were many fewer applications submitted this time than there usually are. Second is that the US 431 "change" sought by Kentucky has already been signed that way for years.

[Revive 755]

And regarding Revive755's comment about "if there's an incident", the type of incident that would cause such a shutdown is pretty rare.  Nevermind that there are at least 3 state routes and several secondary routes in the vicinity that could also be used as detour routes to spread the traffic around.  Simply speaking, such incident planning does not require another Interstate route to be designated.

That may be, but I'm not the committee that is denying an interstate designation based on a corridor not being an alternate route.

[LM117]

it seems to me that there were many fewer applications submitted this time than there usually are.

I noticed that too. Besides Future I-587's setback, I'm surprised NCDOT didn't request that the US-70 bypasses in Clayton and Goldsboro be signed as I-42 since they're interstate standard and they haven't asked for I-495/Future I-495 to be decommissioned and replaced with I-87.

[froggie]

Which makes me ask - is AASHTO really necessary in approving numbers and applications.  Should the FHWA   take over the approval and numbering process altogether?

FHWA already covers the approval process.  They defer to AASHTO for route numbering, except in cases (such as the I-69's, I-73, I-74, and I-99) where the route number is specifically included in Congressional legislation.

That may be, but I'm not the committee that is denying an interstate designation based on a corridor not being an alternate route.

Only if you're using a very loose definition of "alternate route".  As a general rule, an "alternate route" has the same origin/destination and generally the same travelshed.  The "Future I-587" corridor as proposed does not have a destination or travelshed in common with "Future I-87".  And nobody in their right mind takes US 264 all the way to the Outer Banks.

[LM117]

Greenville mayor Allen Thomas says that Future I-587 is still under consideration for approval from AASHTO.

http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/

GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — The push to get US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville designated as an Interstate isn't over yet.

That's according to Greenville mayor Allen Thomas, who said Friday that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation hasn't denied the application to make that stretch of highway Future I-587. In fact, he said a report that was feedback from a side-technical advisory committee has no decision authority. It's only there to simply advise on one technical aspect. Ultimately, the decision will be made with all aspects taken into account.

So for now, the process continues.

Local and state leaders have pushed for interstate status for the highway, saying it would help attract more businesses to eastern North Carolina.

"And it can be measured, literally, it's monumental. It can be measured in billions of dollars. We're going to be comparable to other communities in recruiting business here,"  Greenville mayor Allen Thomas told WNCT's Ken Watling in September when it was announced the state would seek Interstate approval.

It's important to note, Thomas added, that parallel paths are being pursued to get that interstate designation; administrative and via Congress.

Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 back in September. The bill would designate portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.

[The Ghostbuster]

Would future Interstate 587 end at Interstate 95? Or would it be co-designated with Interstate 795 and end in Greenville?

[LM117]

Would future Interstate 587 end at Interstate 95? Or would it be co-designated with Interstate 795 and end in Greenville?

Read the earlier posts...

[wdcrft63]

Greenville mayor Allen Thomas says that Future I-587 is still under consideration for approval from AASHTO.

http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/

GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — The push to get US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville designated as an Interstate isn't over yet.

That's according to Greenville mayor Allen Thomas, who said Friday that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation hasn't denied the application to make that stretch of highway Future I-587. In fact, he said a report that was feedback from a side-technical advisory committee has no decision authority. It's only there to simply advise on one technical aspect. Ultimately, the decision will be made with all aspects taken into account.

So for now, the process continues.

Local and state leaders have pushed for interstate status for the highway, saying it would help attract more businesses to eastern North Carolina.

"And it can be measured, literally, it's monumental. It can be measured in billions of dollars. We're going to be comparable to other communities in recruiting business here,"  Greenville mayor Allen Thomas told WNCT's Ken Watling in September when it was announced the state would seek Interstate approval.

It's important to note, Thomas added, that parallel paths are being pursued to get that interstate designation; administrative and via Congress.

Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 back in September. The bill would designate portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.

Can anyone think of a precedent for AASHTO reversing a numbering recommendation from the committee?

[LM117]

Greenville mayor Allen Thomas says that Future I-587 is still under consideration for approval from AASHTO.

http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/

GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — The push to get US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville designated as an Interstate isn't over yet.

That's according to Greenville mayor Allen Thomas, who said Friday that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation hasn't denied the application to make that stretch of highway Future I-587. In fact, he said a report that was feedback from a side-technical advisory committee has no decision authority. It's only there to simply advise on one technical aspect. Ultimately, the decision will be made with all aspects taken into account.

So for now, the process continues.

Local and state leaders have pushed for interstate status for the highway, saying it would help attract more businesses to eastern North Carolina.

"And it can be measured, literally, it's monumental. It can be measured in billions of dollars. We're going to be comparable to other communities in recruiting business here,"  Greenville mayor Allen Thomas told WNCT's Ken Watling in September when it was announced the state would seek Interstate approval.

It's important to note, Thomas added, that parallel paths are being pursued to get that interstate designation; administrative and via Congress.

Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 back in September. The bill would designate portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.

Can anyone think of a precedent for AASHTO reversing a numbering recommendation from the committee?

I think it happened with I-69E, I-69C & I-69W in Texas.

[lordsutch]

I think it happened with I-69E, I-69C & I-69W in Texas.

Those were all legislated numbers (or at least interpreted as legislated numbers, since the law spelled out East, Central, and West), though.

[wriddle082]

Ok new topic...

For about a month now, the Welcome to North Carolina sign has been missing from I-77 N entering from SC.  Was wondering if NCDOT is planning new welcome signs.  I'm thinking not, since their welcome sign and license plate design are probably each as old as I am, if not older.   But figured I should ask anyway.

[Strider]

Greenville mayor Allen Thomas says that Future I-587 is still under consideration for approval from AASHTO.

http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/

GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — The push to get US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville designated as an Interstate isn't over yet.

That's according to Greenville mayor Allen Thomas, who said Friday that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation hasn't denied the application to make that stretch of highway Future I-587. In fact, he said a report that was feedback from a side-technical advisory committee has no decision authority. It's only there to simply advise on one technical aspect. Ultimately, the decision will be made with all aspects taken into account.

So for now, the process continues.

Local and state leaders have pushed for interstate status for the highway, saying it would help attract more businesses to eastern North Carolina.

"And it can be measured, literally, it's monumental. It can be measured in billions of dollars. We're going to be comparable to other communities in recruiting business here,"  Greenville mayor Allen Thomas told WNCT's Ken Watling in September when it was announced the state would seek Interstate approval.

It's important to note, Thomas added, that parallel paths are being pursued to get that interstate designation; administrative and via Congress.

Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 back in September. The bill would designate portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.

Another interstates? wow. I hope they denied it. I think NC has enough interstates at this time. Finish the existing ones first. (I-26, I-73, I-74, I-42).

[The Ghostbuster]

Personally, I think North Carolina and Texas are having a contest to see which state can sign more Interstates.

[wdcrft63]

Personally, I think North Carolina and Texas are having a contest to see which state can sign more Interstates.

I can assure you, no one in NC is thinking about Texas.

[The Ghostbuster]

Okay. Scratch that idea. I still think both states might be going a little overboard on designating new Interstates within their borders.