Regional Boards > Southeast

Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)

<< < (4/88) > >>

wdcrft63:

--- Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 15, 2016, 08:29:25 PM ---Whats wrong with I-187,I-387,I-987 or even I-687? I have no problem with US-264 becoming an interstate but definitely agree with Interstate 69 Fan and really hope that number gets changed.

--- End quote ---
It's a good question. NCDOT doesn't like interstate numbers to duplicate existing state highway designations. However, I believe there is no NC 187 and no NC 387, so those numbers were available.

LM117:

--- Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 16, 2016, 04:29:54 PM ---
--- Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 15, 2016, 08:29:25 PM ---Whats wrong with I-187,I-387,I-987 or even I-687? I have no problem with US-264 becoming an interstate but definitely agree with Interstate 69 Fan and really hope that number gets changed.

--- End quote ---
It's a good question. NCDOT doesn't like interstate numbers to duplicate existing state highway designations. However, I believe there is no NC 187 and no NC 387, so those numbers were available.

--- End quote ---

I thought NCDOT's decision to use I-587 was odd too, given that it has an interchange with NC-581 in Bailey. Granted, it's not the exact same number but the first two digits are the same.

The Ghostbuster:
I look forward to seeing an Interstate 587/795 duplex. North Carolina will be the only state with two 3-digit Interstates duplexed along a single road. What will the length of the 587/795 duplex be compared to the 785/840 and 271/480 duplexes.

roadman65:
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.

Mapmikey:

--- Quote from: roadman65 on November 17, 2016, 08:48:29 AM ---
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.

--- End quote ---

It was the other way around...I-64 was added to existing VA 168 or it was a simultaneous assignment to new freeway segments.  There were parts of VA 168 that were on the I-64 footpath for nearly 20 years before it was brought to interstate standards (Hampton near the HRBT across to Norfolk and the camp Peary area), so the route needed a number that wasn't the interstate...

Although VA 168 could certainly have been removed from some I-64 sections sooner than it actually was, there was a time when the designation might have been needed, as the FHWA tried to get Virginia to drop I-64 between I-664 and I-564 from the interstate system in 1968.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version