News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)

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

Previous topic - Next topic

LM117

#50
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2016, 06:29:47 PM
We may not see Interstate 587 in North Carolina for a while. First they have to upgrade and signpost Interstate 87.

I don't know...NCDOT is currently focused on US-264 between the Wilson/Greene County line and Greenville. Whenever they get around to widening the shoulders there, it might be possible for I-587 to be signed between Greenville and I-95 in Wilson for the time being until the remainder of the route towards Zebulon gets upgraded. It wouldn't connect to it's parent (yet), but it would connect to 2 other interstates (I-95 & I-795).

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.

The thing is, I don't know if that's allowed due to Congressional law or if FHWA does indeed allow a 3-digit interstate to be signed as long as it connects to another interstate and it intends to connect with it's parent once the upgrades or new construction are completed. :hmm:


EDIT: Disregard this old pile of crap I posted. I forgot about I-495 between I-440 & I-540.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette


Interstate 69 Fan

Quote from: LM117 on November 18, 2016, 06:57:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2016, 06:29:47 PM
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)
The under construction I-422 has a segment opening late this year connecting AL 75 & 79
The orphaned I-238 (Yes, I know there is no I-38)
Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

Mapmikey

North Carolina already has one: I-495


I would be surprised if the I-422 segment is signed that way before it connects to ANY other interstate...
I-164 is not posted west of US 41 even in street view that predates I-69 and the 0.0 milepost is on the bridge over US 41

LM117

#53
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 18, 2016, 07:57:26 PM
North Carolina already has one: I-495

I really need to think twice before I post. I forgot all about I-495 and the others you mentioned. :banghead:

Now if you fellas will excuse me, I gotta go wipe this egg off my face... X-(
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

LM117

#54
FHWA has approved Future I-587. :thumbsup:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13299

QuoteRaleigh, N.C. - Governor Pat McCrory has announced that the Federal Highway Administration has today approved the state's application to add U.S. 264 between Zebulon and Greenville to the Interstate Highway System as Future Interstate 587. This marks the final step in the approval process for the designation.

"Designating U.S. 264 to Greenville as a future interstate is a great milestone that will help fulfill our goal of connecting North Carolina,"  said Governor McCrory. "Future Interstate 587 will become Greenville's first connection to a major interstate corridor, and this is terrific news for both eastern North Carolina and our entire state."

Governor McCrory directed the N.C. Department of Transportation to submit an application to designate U.S. 264 as a future interstate from the U.S. 264/64 split in Zebulon to Greenville in September. This is North Carolina's third future interstate designation this year. In May, Governor McCrory gained two future interstate designations: I-42 for the U.S. 70 corridor between I-40 and Morehead City and I-87 for U.S. 64/17 between Raleigh and the Virginia state line.

"Governor McCrory and I want to thank all parties that were involved in making this future interstate designation a reality,"  Transportation Secretary Nick Tennyson said. "Creating stronger connections to jobs, education, healthcare and recreation through improved transportation infrastructure is a critical part of Governor McCrory's 25-Year Vision for transportation in North Carolina."

Greenville is the largest city in North Carolina currently not served by an interstate highway. Interstate connectivity plays a key role in business recruitment and retention. This new designation will support greater economic development, improve access to East Carolina University and its medical center, and strengthen regional mobility.

Also, AASHTO updated their website. Here's a copy of NCDOT's Future I-587 application:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA/AASHTO%20application%20I-587%20from%20NCDOT%2011-14-16.pdf

And here's the page that shows AASHTO's approval:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA/Special%20Committee%20on%20US%20Route%20Numbering%20Amended%20Activity%20rpt%202016.pdf

Be on the lookout for any Future I-587 signs that will undoubtedly be popping up within the next few months. :nod:

EDIT: I just found FHWA's letter of approval.

http://butterfield.house.gov/sites/butterfield.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/2016_11_21_12_26_17.pdf
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

The Ghostbuster

Will the US 264 designation be truncated on the west end once all is said and done? I think it should end in Greenville.

LM117

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 22, 2016, 03:20:16 PM
Will the US 264 designation be truncated on the west end once all is said and done? I think it should end in Greenville.

Hell, I'd be happy if was just truncated back to Zebulon. But no, I seriously doubt US-264 will be truncated at all.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

bob7374

With the routes approval, I've created a very preliminary exit list based on the US 264 page on Wikipedia and attached it to my NC Future Interstates site:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html

LM117

Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2016, 10:42:02 PM
With the routes approval, I've created a very preliminary exit list based on the US 264 page on Wikipedia and attached it to my NC Future Interstates site:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html

Nice!

One minor issue: You have Stantonsburg Road listed as "Stantonville Road". :poke: :spin:
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

WashuOtaku

Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2016, 10:42:02 PM
With the routes approval, I've created a very preliminary exit list based on the US 264 page on Wikipedia and attached it to my NC Future Interstates site:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html

I see you set it to west-east and though I believe the exit numbers begin from the interstate, do you think they may still sign it north-south because its odd and it does slightly go directional south?

dfilpus

Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2016, 10:42:02 PM
With the routes approval, I've created a very preliminary exit list based on the US 264 page on Wikipedia and attached it to my NC Future Interstates site:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html
THe link at the bottom of the page points to a local disk.

bob7374

Quote from: LM117 on November 24, 2016, 06:57:48 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2016, 10:42:02 PM
With the routes approval, I've created a very preliminary exit list based on the US 264 page on Wikipedia and attached it to my NC Future Interstates site:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html

Nice!

One minor issue: You have Stantonsburg Road listed as "Stantonville Road". :poke: :spin:
Based on comments, and a trip along the corridor via Google Maps Street View, I have revised the list linked above. (Also corrected some of the mistakes from the Wikipedia list).

I would stick to signing it East-West, it certainly doesn't have a northerly component like I-87 and while it does go slightly south toward Greenville, east is the predominant direction.

LM117

Quote from: bob7374 on November 25, 2016, 06:35:41 PMI would stick to signing it East-West, it certainly doesn't have a northerly component like I-87 and while it does go slightly south toward Greenville, east is the predominant direction.

I agree. Signing I-587 N/S makes even less sense than giving the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor an odd 2-di number. E/W would be the way to go here.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

The Ghostbuster

I agree that future Interstate 587 should be signed east-west. By the way, why is Interstate 495 signed north-south when it goes in a east-west direction on a likewise road?

LM117

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2016, 06:52:09 PMBy the way, why is Interstate 495 signed north-south when it goes in a east-west direction on a likewise road?

Because the idea behind I-495 was to connect Raleigh to the Northeast and vice versa.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

Mapmikey

The creation of Future I-587 is posted on the NCDOT Route Change page with an effective date of 11/21/16.

Noteworthy is on page 17 of the document is reference to what may have been a proposal to number this as I-595, suggesting that absent approval of I-87 NCDOT was moving behind the scenes to get US 264 into the interstate system...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2016_11_21.pdf

I-42 and I-87 have not yet made it to the change page...

LM117

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 02, 2016, 07:39:58 PM
The creation of Future I-587 is posted on the NCDOT Route Change page with an effective date of 11/21/16.

Noteworthy is on page 17 of the document is reference to what may have been a proposal to number this as I-595, suggesting that absent approval of I-87 NCDOT was moving behind the scenes to get US 264 into the interstate system...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2016_11_21.pdf

No surprise there. Greenville had been pushing hard for turning US-264 into an interstate long before the bills that led to the creation of the I-87 and I-42 corridors were introduced in Congress. At the time, Greenville only sought an interstate connection to I-95. Wilson, on the other hand, didn't (and still doesn't) care whether or not US-264 is upgraded. As far as they're concerned, I-95 and I-795 is good enough for them.

I'm glad things changed and I-595 didn't happen. It makes better sense for an interstate to run the whole freeway length to Zebulon and is more suited for being an I-x87 rather than an I-x95. An interstate running only between Wilson and Greenville would've been half-assed IMO.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

CanesFan27

Quote from: LM117 on December 03, 2016, 04:11:54 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 02, 2016, 07:39:58 PM
The creation of Future I-587 is posted on the NCDOT Route Change page with an effective date of 11/21/16.

Noteworthy is on page 17 of the document is reference to what may have been a proposal to number this as I-595, suggesting that absent approval of I-87 NCDOT was moving behind the scenes to get US 264 into the interstate system...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2016_11_21.pdf

No surprise there. Greenville had been pushing hard for turning US-264 into an interstate long before the bills that led to the creation of the I-87 and I-42 corridors were introduced in Congress. At the time, Greenville only sought an interstate connection to I-95. Wilson, on the other hand, didn't (and still doesn't) care whether or not US-264 is upgraded. As far as they're concerned, I-95 and I-795 is good enough for them.

I'm glad things changed and I-595 didn't happen. It makes better sense for an interstate to run the whole freeway length to Zebulon and is more suited for being an I-x87 rather than an I-x95. An interstate running only between Wilson and Greenville would've been half-assed IMO.

It would connect to 795.  And it or 795 would have then made it to zebulon and connect with 495.

vdeane

Well, if they had gone with I-595, we wouldn't have the prospect of a 3di being nearly half the length of its parent, and I-795 could have been truncated instead of terminating in an overlap.  There is precedent for an odd 3di extending in both directions from its parent, too: I-390 (though one could really ask if I-390 is really a spur from I-90 or I-490).

Honestly, aside from the elegance of having I-587 branch off I-87 similar to the physical freeway layout (and giving us a legitimate I-587, since the NY one isn't really a freeway so much as a divided highway with an overpass that doesn't even properly connect to its parent), I think I like I-595 better.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

74/171FAN

Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2016, 05:14:11 PM
Well, if they had gone with I-595, we wouldn't have the prospect of a 3di being nearly half the length of its parent, and I-795 could have been truncated instead of terminating in an overlap.  There is precedent for an odd 3di extending in both directions from its parent, too: I-390 (though one could really ask if I-390 is really a spur from I-90 or I-490).

We actually already have this with I-595 in FL. 
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

bob7374

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 02, 2016, 07:39:58 PM
The creation of Future I-587 is posted on the NCDOT Route Change page with an effective date of 11/21/16.

Noteworthy is on page 17 of the document is reference to what may have been a proposal to number this as I-595, suggesting that absent approval of I-87 NCDOT was moving behind the scenes to get US 264 into the interstate system...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2016_11_21.pdf

I-42 and I-87 have not yet made it to the change page...
Perhaps that is because NCDOT applied for I-36 and I-89 and AASHTO chose different numbers and they cannot decide whether to list them under the original numbers or the final ones (and possibly undermining their statements elsewhere as to the 'historical basis' for the chosing of the 87 number).

I guess it's only a matter of time now before an NC 587 designation is placed along the future interstate's path along US 264, as has been done with the creation of NC 140 and NC 295 along the path of those future interstate's routes.

Mapmikey

Quote from: bob7374 on December 05, 2016, 12:16:29 PM

I guess it's only a matter of time now before an NC 587 designation is placed along the future interstate's path along US 264, as has been done with the creation of NC 140 and NC 295 along the path of those future interstate's routes.

I'd be surprised if they did this.  140 and 295 needed it because there were no other posted routes on those segments of freeway.

bob7374

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 05, 2016, 01:09:48 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 05, 2016, 12:16:29 PM

I guess it's only a matter of time now before an NC 587 designation is placed along the future interstate's path along US 264, as has been done with the creation of NC 140 and NC 295 along the path of those future interstate's routes.

I'd be surprised if they did this.  140 and 295 needed it because there were no other posted routes on those segments of freeway.
I hope they don't either, but given that NC 140 is officially routed along not only the new section its signed on, but the entire previously existing segment of the Wilmington Bypass, with I-140, and, at least as of this past June (as seen on Street View images) US 17, though not signed, I wouldn't count out a NC 587 listing showing up on the Route Changes page.

The Ghostbuster

I dislike the idea of signing future Interstates as state routes first. But that's just my opinion.

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".



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.