Regional Boards > Southeast

Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)

<< < (90/93) > >>

LM117:

--- Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 19, 2021, 06:29:56 PM ---
--- Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:36:59 PM ---I don't like the idea of designating Interstate 587 without it connecting with mainline Interstate 87 (which doesn't make it to the US 64/264 junction in Zebulon yet). I feel the same way about Interstate 369 in Texarkana, TX.

--- End quote ---
Incomplete 2di's like I-49 and I-69 have gaps; there's no reason an incomplete 3di can't have gaps as well. If there was no plan to connect I-587 to I-87 you would have a good point.

--- End quote ---

The irony is that when Greenville first started lobbying for an interstate nearly 10 years ago, they only wanted an interstate connection to I-95. Upgrading the rest of the freeway to Zebulon wasn't a priority for them. They're obviously not opposed to upgrading the rest of the corridor, but they believed that connecting to I-95 was all they needed and were willing to settle for that. They see the rest of the corridor to Zebulon (and Raleigh via I-87) as a bonus that NCDOT threw in.

That said, I'm glad things turned out like it did. It would've seemed half-assed for an interstate to go from Greenville to I-95 and end there permanently, instead of finishing the job to Zebulon.

vdeane:

--- Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 19, 2021, 06:29:56 PM ---
--- Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:36:59 PM ---I don't like the idea of designating Interstate 587 without it connecting with mainline Interstate 87 (which doesn't make it to the US 64/264 junction in Zebulon yet). I feel the same way about Interstate 369 in Texarkana, TX.

--- End quote ---
Incomplete 2di's like I-49 and I-69 have gaps; there's no reason an incomplete 3di can't have gaps as well. If there was no plan to connect I-587 to I-87 you would have a good point.

--- End quote ---
When it comes to on the ground infrastructure, there's not much difference between a gap that is planned to be filled at some point in the distant future, a gap that was planned to be filled in but got cancelled, and a gap with no plan to fill in at all.  In fact, if I had my way, these gaps wouldn't be allowed; interstates would need to be added in much more usable chunks, such that added sections would have independent utility and it wouldn't matter much if the funding for the remaining pieces falls through or whatnot.

sprjus4:
^ I-587 between Greenville and I-95 has independent utility.

vdeane:

--- Quote from: sprjus4 on November 19, 2021, 11:28:22 PM ---^ I-587 between Greenville and I-95 has independent utility.

--- End quote ---
I guess you missed the part where I said "these gaps wouldn't be allowed".  I'd also require all new interstate segments to be contiguous.  No gaps allowed.  And that includes 3di routes connecting to their parent.

wdcrft63:

--- Quote from: vdeane on November 20, 2021, 10:28:55 PM ---
--- Quote from: sprjus4 on November 19, 2021, 11:28:22 PM ---^ I-587 between Greenville and I-95 has independent utility.

--- End quote ---
I guess you missed the part where I said "these gaps wouldn't be allowed".  I'd also require all new interstate segments to be contiguous.  No gaps allowed.  And that includes 3di routes connecting to their parent.

--- End quote ---
So... if it were up to you none of the newer sections of I-69 could be signed since there's no connection yet to the original I-69, and none of the newer sections of I-49 could be signed until the gap inside Shreveport is built. This is a lonely position you have.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version