Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)

[Strider]

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.

And NCDOT is not going to decommission that 2-mile I-440 section. If they plan on doing so, they would have announced the minute I-495 (future I-87) designation happens.

[sparker]

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.

And NCDOT is not going to decommission that 2-mile I-440 section. If they plan on doing so, they would have announced the minute I-495 (future I-87) designation happens.

That section of I-440 will probably retain its signage as well as its internal NCDOT designation; when I-87 is eventually signed, they'll probably simply change the BGS's  at both the 40/440 and 440/US 64 interchanges to reflect the revised designation.   

[froggie]

And NCDOT is not going to decommission that 2-mile I-440 section. If they plan on doing so, they would have announced the minute I-495 (future I-87) designation happens.

As I mentioned a ways back after email correspondence with NCDOT, they are still determining whether to remove 440 or not.  It's premature to say that they will or will not decommission it.

[hbelkins]

We may not see Interstate 587 in North Carolina for a while. First they have to upgrade and signpost Interstate 87.

I-369 is signed in Texas and I-269 is signed in Tennessee and neither has yet to connect with their parents, yet they connect to other interstates.

Um... there's others.
I-164 in Indiana (There's a segment running west from US 41)

Uh, no. That's called Veterans Memorial Parkway and is not numbered, and is AFAIK not state-maintained.

[Rothman]

We may not see Interstate 587 in North Carolina for a while. First they have to upgrade and signpost Interstate 87.

I-369 is signed in Texas and I-269 is signed in Tennessee and neither has yet to connect with their parents, yet they connect to other interstates.

Um... there's others.
I-164 in Indiana (There's a segment running west from US 41)

Uh, no. That's called Veterans Memorial Parkway and is not numbered, and is AFAIK not state-maintained.

Isn't that section actually designated I-164 but is just unsigned?

[NE2]

Yes. As usual, HB is wrong.
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Indiana%20AM2013.pdf
"The overall route length of I-164 is 21.39 miles. The segment of I-164 that is proposed to be eliminated, renamed and resigned as I-69 over an existing facility is approximately 20.70 miles long."

INDOT, however, inventories it as part of I-69 from mile 0.000 to mile 0.647. So in his warped states' rights mind, I-69 has an illogical hanging end.

[froggie]

We looked into this for Travel Mapping.  Our conclusion, based in part on 2015 INDOT shapefiles, is that I-164 no longer exists and, as SPUI noted, I-69 has "a hanging end".  We believe this is because INDOT considers the entire interchange complex (including the ramps at Kentucky Ave) to be a single interchange.

[Strider]

And NCDOT is not going to decommission that 2-mile I-440 section. If they plan on doing so, they would have announced the minute I-495 (future I-87) designation happens.

As I mentioned a ways back after email correspondence with NCDOT, they are still determining whether to remove 440 or not.  It's premature to say that they will or will not decommission it.

They are not going to. I am very sure of it. No reason to end I-440 just 2 miles away from I-40.

[vdeane]

No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

[hbelkins]

Street View shows the last mile marker posted as 0.2. Based on that mile marker's location, it appears that the zero mile marker is at the bridge over US 41.

We looked into this for Travel Mapping.  Our conclusion, based in part on 2015 INDOT shapefiles, is that I-164 no longer exists and, as SPUI noted, I-69 has "a hanging end".  We believe this is because INDOT considers the entire interchange complex (including the ramps at Kentucky Ave) to be a single interchange.

[Mapmikey]

Street View shows the last mile marker posted as 0.2. Based on that mile marker's location, it appears that the zero mile marker is at the bridge over US 41.

We looked into this for Travel Mapping.  Our conclusion, based in part on 2015 INDOT shapefiles, is that I-164 no longer exists and, as SPUI noted, I-69 has "a hanging end".  We believe this is because INDOT considers the entire interchange complex (including the ramps at Kentucky Ave) to be a single interchange.

Older GMSV showed I-164 0.0 marker on the US 41 bridge

[NE2]

The part west of US 41 was apparently added later, as mile markers reset at US 41.

[Strider]

No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

It happens everywhere, so accept it.

[sparker]

No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

An actual signed concurrency of I-87 & I-440 probably isn't necessary; all that is needed is to prominently post "TO I-87" on the I-440 approach BGS's along I-40 in both directions, and the corresponding "TO I-40" on the BGS's pertaining to the movement from I-87 west to I-440 south.  The interchanges are close enough to one another for such signage references to function well. 

[LM117]

Google is smoking crack again. Google Maps is now showing US-264 as I-587, including the northern US-264 freeway around Greenville that isn't part of Future I-587.

[Stephane Dumas]

Google is smoking crack again. Google Maps is now showing US-264 as I-587, including the northern US-264 freeway around Greenville that isn't part of Future I-587.

I saved their goof for posterity. http://archive.is/lGgYV

[wdcrft63]

No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

An actual signed concurrency of I-87 & I-440 probably isn't necessary; all that is needed is to prominently post "TO I-87" on the I-440 approach BGS's along I-40 in both directions, and the corresponding "TO I-40" on the BGS's pertaining to the movement from I-87 west to I-440 south.  The interchanges are close enough to one another for such signage references to function well.

I think a 2di should end at another 2di. And yes, I have the same opinion concerning I-22 in Mississippi.

[sparker]

No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

An actual signed concurrency of I-87 & I-440 probably isn't necessary; all that is needed is to prominently post "TO I-87" on the I-440 approach BGS's along I-40 in both directions, and the corresponding "TO I-40" on the BGS's pertaining to the movement from I-87 west to I-440 south.  The interchanges are close enough to one another for such signage references to function well.

I think a 2di should end at another 2di. And yes, I have the same opinion concerning I-22 in Mississippi.

Despite my misgivings, there's probably a 50-50 chance that NCDOT will indeed sign I-87 over I-440 between I-40 and the present 64/264 interchange.  OTOH, unless either TN can be convinced that Lamar Avenue needs to be upgraded to Interstate standards -- or a Southern Crossing of the Mississippi River near Tunica is forthcoming (unlikely in the foreseeable future), the west end of I-22 will remain at I-269. 

[wdcrft63]

No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

An actual signed concurrency of I-87 & I-440 probably isn't necessary; all that is needed is to prominently post "TO I-87" on the I-440 approach BGS's along I-40 in both directions, and the corresponding "TO I-40" on the BGS's pertaining to the movement from I-87 west to I-440 south.  The interchanges are close enough to one another for such signage references to function well.

I think a 2di should end at another 2di. And yes, I have the same opinion concerning I-22 in Mississippi.

Despite my misgivings, there's probably a 50-50 chance that NCDOT will indeed sign I-87 over I-440 between I-40 and the present 64/264 interchange.  OTOH, unless either TN can be convinced that Lamar Avenue needs to be upgraded to Interstate standards -- or a Southern Crossing of the Mississippi River near Tunica is forthcoming (unlikely in the foreseeable future), the west end of I-22 will remain at I-269.

This is a really minor issue; both 440 and 87 shields are going to appear on the segment and we're only worrying about whether one of them will have "TO" over it. That said, I think I favor the concurrence. Drivers coming around Raleigh on 440 expect that route to take them to 40, and drivers westbound on what will be I-87 will also expect that route to take them to 40. So let's have the concurrence.

[bob7374]

No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

An actual signed concurrency of I-87 & I-440 probably isn't necessary; all that is needed is to prominently post "TO I-87" on the I-440 approach BGS's along I-40 in both directions, and the corresponding "TO I-40" on the BGS's pertaining to the movement from I-87 west to I-440 south.  The interchanges are close enough to one another for such signage references to function well.

I think a 2di should end at another 2di. And yes, I have the same opinion concerning I-22 in Mississippi.

Despite my misgivings, there's probably a 50-50 chance that NCDOT will indeed sign I-87 over I-440 between I-40 and the present 64/264 interchange.  OTOH, unless either TN can be convinced that Lamar Avenue needs to be upgraded to Interstate standards -- or a Southern Crossing of the Mississippi River near Tunica is forthcoming (unlikely in the foreseeable future), the west end of I-22 will remain at I-269.

This is a really minor issue; both 440 and 87 shields are going to appear on the segment and we're only worrying about whether one of them will have "TO" over it. That said, I think I favor the concurrence. Drivers coming around Raleigh on 440 expect that route to take them to 40, and drivers westbound on what will be I-87 will also expect that route to take them to 40. So let's have the concurrence.

However they sign it on I-440, as posted on the I-87 in NC thread, FHWA lists I-87 in NC as 12.9 miles long, starting at I-40 and traveling 2.9 miles over I-440 to the US 64/264 freeway:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm

[Strider]

No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

An actual signed concurrency of I-87 & I-440 probably isn't necessary; all that is needed is to prominently post "TO I-87" on the I-440 approach BGS's along I-40 in both directions, and the corresponding "TO I-40" on the BGS's pertaining to the movement from I-87 west to I-440 south.  The interchanges are close enough to one another for such signage references to function well.

Yeah I mentioned in the other part of the post that NCDOT will sign I-87/I-440 together. Proof? I-26/I-240 (4 miles) in Asheville; and I-73/I-840 (3.5 miles) in Greensboro even though these 2dis continue past the 3di's terminus, plus the link that bob7374 provided that has I-87 that to be signed with I-440 for 3 miles. 

[vdeane]

Yeesh.  The more and more I read about North Carolina's interstate numbering, the more and more I dislike it.  They are certainly not believers in keeping the system neat and orderly.

[The Ghostbuster]

I have no problem with future Interstate 87 ending at Interstate 440. It, of course, would not be the first 2di Interstate ending at a 3di Interstate. As for Interstate 587 already being shown Google Maps, it seems like they jump the gun a lot. Also, isn't the consensus around here that "Google Maps Sucks?"

[wdcrft63]

Yeesh.  The more and more I read about North Carolina's interstate numbering, the more and more I dislike it.  They are certainly not believers in keeping the system neat and orderly.

Here's an identical situation in Tennessee: I-75/I-640 concurrent in Knoxville.
https://goo.gl/maps/bhQVVu7KpSS2

TNDOT (and NCDOT) probably don't worry too much about whether their signage is neat and orderly, but whether it helps motorists get where they're going. The question is whether a concurrence is helpful or confusing.

[sparker]

No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

An actual signed concurrency of I-87 & I-440 probably isn't necessary; all that is needed is to prominently post "TO I-87" on the I-440 approach BGS's along I-40 in both directions, and the corresponding "TO I-40" on the BGS's pertaining to the movement from I-87 west to I-440 south.  The interchanges are close enough to one another for such signage references to function well.

Yeah I mentioned in the other part of the post that NCDOT will sign I-87/I-440 together. Proof? I-26/I-240 (4 miles) in Asheville; and I-73/I-840 (3.5 miles) in Greensboro even though these 2dis continue past the 3di's terminus, plus the link that bob7374 provided that has I-87 that to be signed with I-440 for 3 miles. 

Since the 440/87 and 440/40 interchanges near Raleigh are quite close together, it probably won't make much of a difference whether or not 87 is signed over 440.  With or without "TO" banners, whatever is chosen will probably work fine for the purpose of connectivity.  However, to compare that with 26/240 and 73/840 is not particularly valid, as both 26 and 73 (at least within the scope of planned routes) leave the coincidences at both ends as an individual route; 87/440 is what is often termed a "useless" multiplex, as I-87 will end at I-40 along with I-440.  Maybe it's mitigated by the very fact that both of them end at a single point; not co-signing them may disadvantage drivers leaving I-40 bound for either points along I-87 or the north side of Raleigh served by I-440.  So let NCDOT sign it as they deem fit; if it causes confusion, they'll certainly get feedback about it down the line!