Since I-587 was approved, I feel like that I-587 should have it's own thread.
Here is a reference to I-587:
http://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264
:-)
FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.
US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.
US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
Quote from: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 07:46:03 PM
FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.
US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.
US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
Obviously, upgrading will be needed, but FHWA probably will. I don't like the number chosen, though. #Interstate187
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 15, 2016, 08:05:21 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 07:46:03 PM
FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.
US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.
US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
Obviously, upgrading will be needed, but FHWA probably will. I don't like the number chosen, though. #Interstate187
Was it the FHWA that turned NCDOT's proposed I-36 and I-89 into future I-42 and I-87 or was that AASHTO? I hope it was the FHWA because it makes absolutely no sense why they would call this road I-587. I dislike the the choice I-87 already but at least there was kinda a reason for it(the historic dates). Why do I-587 when there already is one? Is NC trying to be the first state to duplicate a 3DI? 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.
Wouldn't be the first duplicated 3di by a longshot. But certainly other I-x87's to choose from that would not be duplicates (187, 387, 987). Although the existing I-587 is certainly an odd one.
As for bridges between Sims and Zebulon- what are the clearances? The bridges look fairly modern to me, so it can't be by much. (A foot or less, perhaps.) Might the easiest solution be to just lower the road by a foot or so on either side of the overpasses?
Quote from: orulz on November 15, 2016, 08:57:22 PM
Wouldn't be the first duplicated 3di by a longshot.
Oops. I meant it say it would be the first time that two 2d interstates with the same number that don't connect would also have the same numbered 3di. Ex. I-684 only exists on the eastern I-84 and not the western one.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 15, 2016, 08:29:25 PMWas it the FHWA that turned NCDOT's proposed I-36 and I-89 into future I-42 and I-87 or was that AASHTO?
It was AASHTO. See pages 7 & 8:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf)
Quote from: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 09:36:31 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 15, 2016, 08:29:25 PMWas it the FHWA that turned NCDOT's proposed I-36 and I-89 into future I-42 and I-87 or was that AASHTO?
It was AASHTO. See pages 7 & 8:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf)
Well then I guess I-587 is here to stay
Quote from: orulz on November 15, 2016, 08:57:22 PMAs for bridges between Sims and Zebulon- what are the clearances? The bridges look fairly modern to me, so it can't be by much. (A foot or less, perhaps.) Might the easiest solution be to just lower the road by a foot or so on either side of the overpasses?
NCDOT Secretary Nick Tennyson brought up the issue of bridge clearances during a radio interview in September. The bridges between Sims and Zebulon are older than those between I-795 and Greenville.
http://publicradioeast.org/post/greenville-would-benefit-us-264-interstate-designation (http://publicradioeast.org/post/greenville-would-benefit-us-264-interstate-designation)
As you mentioned, the bridges aren't that much lower. I agree that NCDOT will probably lower the highway rather than replace the bridges. That's what they're currently doing on I-85 between Henderson and the Virginia state line.
Insanity.
Quote from: Rothman on November 15, 2016, 11:27:48 PM
Insanity.
Time to update the image:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fh9pnz6c.png&hash=ef6d80b6b69e534267a40e7966bfdbb67a247372)
Who cares that there's already an existing I-587? The one in NY is really questionable and pointless since it contains no interchanges whatsoever.
The real question is: Why the heck does NC need so many interstates? I guess they want every freeway to be an interstate; if that's so, I can completely understand.
Quote from: compdude787 on November 16, 2016, 02:08:53 AM
The real question is: Why the heck does NC need so many interstates? I guess they want every freeway to be an interstate; if that's so, I can completely understand.
Does Fritzowl work for NCDOT??? :bigass: :pan:
Quote from: cjk374 on November 16, 2016, 05:47:41 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on November 16, 2016, 02:08:53 AM
The real question is: Why the heck does NC need so many interstates? I guess they want every freeway to be an interstate; if that's so, I can completely understand.
Does Fritzowl work for NCDOT??? :bigass: :pan:
Somebody beat me to this joke.
Quote from: compdude787 on November 16, 2016, 02:08:53 AMThe real question is: Why the heck does NC need so many interstates? I guess they want every freeway to be an interstate; if that's so, I can completely understand.
Not every freeway in NC is planned to become an interstate. There are plenty of freeways in the state without I-shields.
NCDOT usually doesn't seek an interstate designation unless there is strong support for it at the local level. Greenville & Pitt County have been practically screaming for US-264's upgrade since 2012. They didn't get anywhere then because they had virtually no support from the surrounding counties, who were more focused on upgrading US-70 to a freeway between I-40 near Garner and Morehead City, though an interstate designation for US-70 was not planned at the time. Most of the counties along the US-70 corridor also carried a lot of political weight in the state legislature.
So, Greenville mayor Allen Thomas met with Kinston mayor BJ Murphy in early 2013 and came up with the "Quad East" interstate(s) idea. It was a "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" kinda deal. Fast forward to 2016 and I-42, I-87, and now I-587 are born. The squeaky wheel gets the grease...
http://wnct.com/2016/08/09/how-quad-east-could-connect-four-of-eastern-carolinas-metro-areas/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/09/how-quad-east-could-connect-four-of-eastern-carolinas-metro-areas/)
There's also another possible future interstate in the works, which would make up the last part of the Quad East interstate system. It was originally planned to run from US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston to Greenville using the CF Harvey Parkway and NC-11, but that has now been expanded to include a connection to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel by following US-13 north of Greenville, which would give Greenville and the Global TransPark in Kinston interstate access to the Hampton Roads metro in Virginia. The Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act was introduced in Congress in September that would make it federal law if passed. I expect they'll re-introduce the bill next year. If it passes, it'll probably be attached to a much larger transportation bill, similar to how I-42, I-87 and I-795's extension got tacked onto the FAST Act.
https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9 (https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In my opinion, when interstate status is given to the whole corridor for routes like US 64, 264, and 70, they should move the US routes back onto the original old/alternate/business routes
where possible. IMO having multiple highways of the same number can be confusing.
US 264 in particular has a completely contiguous, well-maintained, fairly modern 2-lane highway clear from Zebulon to Greenville that is now signed as 264 ALT for most of its length.
US 64 has a contiguous route too but some parts of it are pretty ancient and would need to be upgraded, particularly between Zebulon and Spring Hope but probably a few other stretches as well.
US 70 is more of a basket case where gaps abound. These are mostly places where the existing US 70 is still on its original alignment AND where I-42 when it is complete is not going to move. There would be gaps between Princeton and Goldsboro, then between La Grange and Kinston, a small gap between the end of te future Kinston bypass and Dover, and finally between James City and Havelock. So one could easily question whether it would be worth it or not.
LGL44VL
Agreed. I've never liked the idea of having a useless overlap between a US route (or any other route) and an interstate when the original alignment is still available and decent. IMO keep the overlaps to where necessary and don't have overlaps for the sake of having overlaps.
North Carolina has a long history of returning US routes from interstate overlays...
The ones people here are most familiar with: US 117 and I-795; I-440 and US 70-401; US 220 through Ellerbe
There was also a substantial return for US 70 (Greensboro to Hillsborough)
US 64 Conover to Statesville
US 29 on Bypasses of both Charlotte and Salisbury
I say "North Carolina, that's enough Future Interstates. Hold off until 2017."
However, I don't like I-587. As I've said, I-587 needs to be renumbered.
This is how NY's I-x87 are today
I-187 = Redesignated as I-287
I-287 = Existing
I-387 = Redesignated as an extension of I-87
I-487 = Cancelled
I-587 = Existing, however not up to Interstate Standards
I-687 = Cancelled
I-787 = Is Existing
I-887 & I-987 = Never Designated or existed
I think I-587 in NC should be either I-187 or I-987. Saving even numbers in case NC goes with any bypasses. ;-)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 16, 2016, 05:06:49 PM
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.
4-5 miles
Map of possibly De-multiplexed US routes once interstates 42, 87 and 587 are complete. I pondered for a while the wisdom of running mainline US 64 back through downtown Rocky Mount but then noted this is much less extreme than putting US 70 back through downtown Raleigh.
LGL44VL
Map here. LOL
http://goo.gl/1zyv6K
LGL44VL
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 16, 2016, 05:06:49 PM
North Carolina will be the only state with two 3-digit Interstates duplexed along a single road.
Doesn't Ohio have a 480/271 concurrency, somewhere near Oakwood in suburban Cleveland?
Quote from: TheStranger on November 17, 2016, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 16, 2016, 05:06:49 PM
North Carolina will be the only state with two 3-digit Interstates duplexed along a single road.
Doesn't Ohio have a 480/271 concurrency, somewhere near Oakwood in suburban Cleveland?
He means that NC will be the only state that will have two cases of 3-digit interstate concurrencies, which would be I-840/I-785 in Greensboro and I-795/I-587 in Wilson, once they're built/upgraded.
And yes, there is a I-480/I-271 concurrency in Ohio.
Quote from: orulz on November 17, 2016, 04:27:54 PM
Map here. LOL
http://goo.gl/1zyv6K
LGL44VL
You got something wrong. I-87 will be with I-440 to end at I-40.
^ or may replace that part of I-440 entirely. NCDOT had not yet decided when I asked them about it.
Thanks in part to posts made here, I whipped up a page on Interstate 587 (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-587_nc.html) yesterday on Iguide. Drove US 264 east from I-95 to Greenville in 2013, so made use of a few of those photos too.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 18, 2016, 09:00:49 AM
You got something wrong. I-87 will be with I-440 to end at I-40.
Fixed. Thanks!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 16, 2016, 05:06:49 PM
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.
The 587/795 multiplex will probably be around 5 miles. The I-785/840 multiplex will be around 7 miles, and the I-271/480 multiplex is around 5 miles. :)
Quote from: froggie on November 18, 2016, 09:06:37 AM
^ or may replace that part of I-440 entirely. NCDOT had not yet decided when I asked them about it.
I doubt it. No reason to end I-440 at Future I-87 just 2 miles away from I-40. They will probably keep I-440 as it is and have it multiplex with I-87.
Ugh, keeping that will result in one going south (I-87), east (I-440), AND west (US-64) towards I-40. Those signs are pretty confusing as is.
I don't think 64 will move back to its old route in wake county. (Or at least west of exit 429). Reason: the route of 64 on the beltline and that freeway to freeway connection.
Do you end 264 in Zebulon?
And since 264 was extended from Zebulon to Raleigh because of the desire to have a continuous raleigh to Greenville designation. I could see where 587 go all the way to 440.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2016, 12:06:12 PMAnd since 264 was extended from Zebulon to Raleigh because of the desire to have a continuous raleigh to Greenville designation. I could see where 587 go all the way to 440.
Please don't give NCDOT any ideas. :ded: It's bad enough that we already have a US-64/264 concurrency.
Quote from: LM117 on November 18, 2016, 12:31:14 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2016, 12:06:12 PMAnd since 264 was extended from Zebulon to Raleigh because of the desire to have a continuous raleigh to Greenville designation. I could see where 587 go all the way to 440.
Please don't give NCDOT any ideas. :ded: It's bad enough that we already have a US-64/264 concurrency.
It really isn't that bothersome.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 18, 2016, 11:45:46 AM
Ugh, keeping that will result in one going south (I-87), east (I-440), AND west (US-64) towards I-40. Those signs are pretty confusing as is.
That's NCDOT for you. They are known to do some things that can be very puzzling. I am pretty sure there are signs similar to this elsewhere.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2016, 12:06:12 PM
I don't think 64 will move back to its old route in wake county. (Or at least west of exit 429). Reason: the route of 64 on the beltline and that freeway to freeway connection.
Do you end 264 in Zebulon?
And since 264 was extended from Zebulon to Raleigh because of the desire to have a continuous raleigh to Greenville designation. I could see where 587 go all the way to 440.
I would end 264 at the 64 intersection in Zebulon. I still don't see why there are 64/264 multiplex to start with, unless they decide to extend 264 way past Raleigh to the west, otherwise get rid of that concurrency.
Quote from: Strider on November 18, 2016, 01:43:59 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2016, 12:06:12 PM
I don't think 64 will move back to its old route in wake county. (Or at least west of exit 429). Reason: the route of 64 on the beltline and that freeway to freeway connection.
Do you end 264 in Zebulon?
And since 264 was extended from Zebulon to Raleigh because of the desire to have a continuous raleigh to Greenville designation. I could see where 587 go all the way to 440.
I would end 264 at the 64 intersection in Zebulon. I still don't see why there are 64/264 multiplex to start with, unless they decide to extend 264 way past Raleigh to the west, otherwise get rid of that concurrency.
I agree. The concurrency is pointless, as US 264 ends at I-440.
Quote from: Alex on November 18, 2016, 11:06:56 AM
Thanks in part to posts made here, I whipped up a page on Interstate 587 (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-587_nc.html) yesterday on Iguide. Drove US 264 east from I-95 to Greenville in 2013, so made use of a few of those photos too.
Your Welcome!
Quote from: Strider on November 18, 2016, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 18, 2016, 11:45:46 AM
Ugh, keeping that will result in one going south (I-87), east (I-440), AND west (US-64) towards I-40. Those signs are pretty confusing as is.
That's NCDOT for you. They are known to do some things that can be very puzzling. I am pretty sure there are signs similar to this elsewhere.
There are. And this section already has east 440 and west 64, so adding south 87 won't be much extra confusion.
I'm in favor of the concurrence. The beltway is commonly called "440" in Raleigh, so it would seem odd for that designation to disappear over a short section. And I-87 and I-40 really should meet.
Quote from: Alex on November 18, 2016, 11:06:56 AM
Thanks in part to posts made here, I whipped up a page on Interstate 587 (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-587_nc.html) yesterday on Iguide. Drove US 264 east from I-95 to Greenville in 2013, so made use of a few of those photos too.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2016, 12:58:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 18, 2016, 12:31:14 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2016, 12:06:12 PMAnd since 264 was extended from Zebulon to Raleigh because of the desire to have a continuous raleigh to Greenville designation. I could see where 587 go all the way to 440.
Please don't give NCDOT any ideas. :ded: It's bad enough that we already have a US-64/264 concurrency.
It really isn't that bothersome.
I know. I'm just not a fan of it. Speaking of US-264, I noticed that US-264 isn't signed at two interchanges where it's concurrent with US-64 at Exit 432 and Exit 435. At Exit 435, there's "TO US-264" but that's it.
Check this video out that NCDOTcommunications put up today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTXU4SHhbT0
Quote from: LM117 on November 18, 2016, 06:13:17 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2016, 12:58:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 18, 2016, 12:31:14 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2016, 12:06:12 PMAnd since 264 was extended from Zebulon to Raleigh because of the desire to have a continuous raleigh to Greenville designation. I could see where 587 go all the way to 440.
Please don't give NCDOT any ideas. :ded: It's bad enough that we already have a US-64/264 concurrency.
It really isn't that bothersome.
I know. I'm just not a fan of it. Speaking of US-264, I noticed that US-264 isn't signed at two interchanges where it's concurrent with US-64 at Exit 432 and Exit 435. At Exit 435, there's "TO US-264" but that's it.
right as they've never upgraded signage at Zebulon or Wendell.
We may not see Interstate 587 in North Carolina for a while. First they have to upgrade and signpost Interstate 87. Otherwise, Interstate 587 will not connect with its parent route (sort of like the existing 587 in New York). Of course, US 264 has to be upgraded as well.
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.
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)
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
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-(
FHWA has approved Future I-587. :thumbsup:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13299 (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 (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 (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 (http://butterfield.house.gov/sites/butterfield.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/2016_11_21_12_26_17.pdf)
Will the US 264 designation be truncated on the west end once all is said and done? I think it should end in Greenville.
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.
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 (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html)
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 (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html)
Nice!
One minor issue: You have Stantonsburg Road listed as "Stantonville Road". :poke: :spin:
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 (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?
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 (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html)
THe link at the bottom of the page points to a local disk.
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 (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.
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 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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I dislike the idea of signing future Interstates as state routes first. But that's just my opinion.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2016, 05:05:41 PM
But that's just my opinion.
Accurate summary of every post you've ever made.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2016, 05:05:41 PM
I dislike the idea of signing future Interstates as state routes first. But that's just my opinion.
Better than putting US routes on the freeway. Then you get a useless concurrency. Of course, for I-587, that useless concurrency is already guaranteed thanks to the existing numbering, but it should be avoided where possible.
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2016, 05:47:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2016, 05:05:41 PM
I dislike the idea of signing future Interstates as state routes first. But that's just my opinion.
Better than putting US routes on the freeway. Then you get a useless concurrency. Of course, for I-587, that useless concurrency is already guaranteed thanks to the existing numbering, but it should be avoided where possible.
Don't assume that a Route Change notice will lead to actual signage on the road. For example, NCDOT did a Route Change a couple of years back to assign the number NC 555 to the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville, but this number has never appeared on the road. I don't think anyone is going to be seeing NC 587 signs on US 264.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 05, 2016, 06:49:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2016, 05:47:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2016, 05:05:41 PM
I dislike the idea of signing future Interstates as state routes first. But that's just my opinion.
Better than putting US routes on the freeway. Then you get a useless concurrency. Of course, for I-587, that useless concurrency is already guaranteed thanks to the existing numbering, but it should be avoided where possible.
Don't assume that a Route Change notice will lead to actual signage on the road. For example, NCDOT did a Route Change a couple of years back to assign the number NC 555 to the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville, but this number has never appeared on the road. I don't think anyone is going to be seeing NC 587 signs on US 264.
There was a request to add NC 555, not an actual route change. The link appeared in the 'Proposed Route Changes' section. Its disappearance suggests it may have been turned down.
The request is still findable on Google: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Request%20Form%20140516%20SIGNED.pdf
NC 472 disappeared at the same time...
At least this will be a more plausible example than the pseudo expressway in Kingston, NY. IMO, it's just as bad as I-180 in Cheyenne. :pan:
I agree with Henry. Interstate 180 in Cheyenne should've just been designated: Business Loop Interstate 25, U.S. Highway 85 and U.S. Highway 87 Business. Existing Interstate 587 in Kingston NY, should just be NY 28.
I have advocated the idea of instead of numbering the southern I-87 corridor as Interstate 87, numbering it as Interstate 46. See the Interstate 87 thread to see my detailed explanation. So, as a result of that idea, I would advocate numbering the US 264 corridor (future I-587) as an odd I-x46, such as something like an Interstate 546.
However, it looks like I-87 and I-587 will be here to stay, regardless of how much we fantasize of other possibilities for numbering. Even with I-87, I'm not sure that I-587 is the best numbering for this 3di, since there is already one in New York - this isn't really a problem in my opinion, but I'd say they just should have gone with a different odd first digit.
There isn't a State Highway 187 in North Carolina. They could have used that number. Also the 387 number was available. Alas, 587 it will be.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 12, 2017, 05:37:00 PM
There isn't a State Highway 187 in North Carolina. They could have used that number. Also the 387 number was available. Alas, 587 it will be.
What about 787? Or 987?
Sort of like I-516 in Savannah shy did they not use 116.
Or 110 in Pensacola, since it is so close to Biloxi's version of 110. I know its another state but there all all the other odd x10s available
LGMS428
Anybody know if "Future I-587" signs have been posted along US-264 yet? :hmmm:
There aren't even signs for Future I-87 up. At this rate NCDOT's "Future" sign budget is exceeding that of some other state's entire DOTs :P.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 04, 2017, 03:01:31 PM
There aren't even signs for Future I-87 up.
"Future I-87" signs started going up along US-17 last October. There may also be signs on US-64 east of Rocky Mount.
http://wtkr.com/2016/10/24/governor-mccrory-to-unveil-new-i-87-sign/ (http://wtkr.com/2016/10/24/governor-mccrory-to-unveil-new-i-87-sign/)
Quote from: LM117 on February 04, 2017, 10:21:45 AM
Anybody know if "Future I-587" signs have been posted along US-264 yet? :hmmm:
My wife wants to head up to Greenville sometime this week to check out our son's new place. If we go I'll run up to 264 and check.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 17, 2016, 01:26:16 PM
North Carolina has a long history of returning US routes from interstate overlays...
The ones people here are most familiar with: US 117 and I-795; I-440 and US 70-401; US 220 through Ellerbe
There was also a substantial return for US 70 (Greensboro to Hillsborough)
US 64 Conover to Statesville
US 29 on Bypasses of both Charlotte and Salisbury
Virginia also moved back US 13 to its old alignment where it used to be on I-64 from Bowers Hill to the Northhampton Blvd. Interchange. Military Highway was US 13 Business during the time frame as well.
US 44 in Connecticut was moved back from a freeway to its original alignment east of Hartford and was US 44 Alternate for a while.
Quote from: LM117 on February 04, 2017, 10:21:45 AM
Anybody know if "Future I-587" signs have been posted along US-264 yet? :hmmm:
As of today - they are not.
Which do you think will be signposted first, Interstate 87 or Interstate 587?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2017, 06:41:28 PM
Which do you think will be signposted first, Interstate 87 or Interstate 587?
As I've said in another thread, it's likely NCDOT will place "Future" signage on both routes, likely at approximately the same time. As far as actual shields, it'll depend on the schedule for upgrades. My bet would be on mainline 87, as the portion from US 258 at Tarboro out to US 17 is already at Interstate standards (last to be constructed); it's just the earlier portion between Knightsdale and Tarboro that's substandard. If the entire section from Raleigh to Williamston receives upgrades, it'll be a candidate for full signage -- as a viable SIU terminating at a major NHS route -- regardless of any progress (or lack thereof) along US 17 to the north.
Quote from: sparker on February 27, 2017, 08:45:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2017, 06:41:28 PM
Which do you think will be signposted first, Interstate 87 or Interstate 587?
As I've said in another thread, it's likely NCDOT will place "Future" signage on both routes, likely at approximately the same time. As far as actual shields, it'll depend on the schedule for upgrades. My bet would be on mainline 87, as the portion from US 258 at Tarboro out to US 17 is already at Interstate standards (last to be constructed); it's just the earlier portion between Knightsdale and Tarboro that's substandard. If the entire section from Raleigh to Williamston receives upgrades, it'll be a candidate for full signage -- as a viable SIU terminating at a major NHS route -- regardless of any progress (or lack thereof) along US 17 to the north.
Future I-87 BGS signs have already started going up on US-64 east of Rocky Mount and along US-17. Future I-587 signs will probably start going up on US-264 sometime in the coming spring or summer.
As for actual I-87 shields, NCDOT could go ahead and send a request to AASHTO & FHWA to decommission I-495/Future I-495 from US-64 between I-440 and I-95, while at the same time, requesting permission to sign the Knightdale Bypass between I-440 and I-540 as I-87.
The small stretch of I-440 between what's now I-495 and I-40 may also be decommissioned in favor of I-87, since I-87 is supposed to end at I-40 instead of I-440.
Another possibility is that once NCDOT widens the shoulders on US-264 between the Wilson/Greene County line and Exit 73 in Greenville, NCDOT could also seek approval to put up I-587 shields between Greenville and I-95 in Wilson. The remainder of the corridor between I-95 and Zebulon is gonna need more than shoulder widening to bring US-264 to interstate standards.
Let me clarify: When I asked which would be signposted first, I meant actual signs, not future signs. Preferably I think Interstate 87 should be signed first, when upgrades are complete of course.
They should have sought for I-40N.
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.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 28, 2017, 06:02:56 PM
They should have sought for I-40N.
Texas and its internal proclivities notwithstanding, I don't think that NCDOT, AASHTO, or FHWA would ever entertain the notion of a suffixed route that wasn't an actual route split. And the fact that I-42 is commissioned right down the center of the two potential "branches" would likely end such a discussion before it began.
There is no need to bring back any more suffix Interstates, thank you very much. Interstates 35E and 35W in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and in Dallas-Fort Worth should have stayed the only ones left in the entire system.
I'm fairly certain Avalanchez71's post about I-40N was sarcasm. Relax.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: LM117 on March 01, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
I'm fairly certain Avalanchez71's post about I-40N was sarcasm. Relax.
I got that. It's just that with the 89/87 debacle -- among others -- that I sure wouldn't put it past NCDOT to pull another weird-ass designation out of a hat (or other locations)! :rolleyes:
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 28, 2017, 06:23:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Strider on March 01, 2017, 04:46:38 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 28, 2017, 06:23:38 PM
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.
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 18, 2016, 07:38:22 PM
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)
Uh, no. That's called Veterans Memorial Parkway and is not numbered, and is AFAIK not state-maintained.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2017, 10:05:41 AM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 18, 2016, 07:38:22 PM
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)
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2017, 09:55:03 PM
QuoteAnd 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.
No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.
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.
Quote from: froggie on March 02, 2017, 11:30:02 AM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2017, 10:03:17 PM
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.
Quote from: froggie on March 02, 2017, 11:30:02 AM
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
The part west of US 41 was apparently added later, as mile markers reset at US 41.
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.
It happens everywhere, so accept it.
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
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.
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. :pan:
Quote from: LM117 on April 08, 2017, 09:57:35 AM
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. :pan:
I saved their goof for posterity. :) http://archive.is/lGgYV
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2017, 12:54:05 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
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.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 09, 2017, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2017, 12:54:05 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2017, 05:16:08 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 09, 2017, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2017, 12:54:05 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
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.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 10, 2017, 08:50:18 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2017, 05:16:08 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 09, 2017, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2017, 12:54:05 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
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 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2017, 12:54:05 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
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. :)
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.
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?"
Quote from: vdeane on April 10, 2017, 01:46:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Strider on April 10, 2017, 01:14:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2017, 12:54:05 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
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!
Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2017, 08:06:39 PM
Quote from: Strider on April 10, 2017, 01:14:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2017, 12:54:05 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
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!
I wasn't even comparing 73/840 and 26/240 with 87/440. My point is that that NCDOT does sign both routes together whether it is pointless or not. I am sorry if you don't like it, but that is the plan.
Quote from: Strider on April 10, 2017, 10:11:33 PM
I wasn't even comparing 73/840 and 26/240 with 87/440. My point is that that NCDOT does sign both routes together whether it is pointless or not. I am sorry if you don't like it, but that is the plan.
All right -- you're indeed correct in that NCDOT
does have a penchant for multiplexed Interstates, so it's virtually certain that 87 will indeed be co-signed with 440 around the SE edge of Raleigh. Not a matter of my own personal preference (I'm not directly paying for the signs, so I really don't give a FF about the co-signage). However -- if this practice is maintained, I may look into buying shares of Alcoa and Reynolds (major suppliers of sheet aluminum)! :sombrero:
Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2017, 08:06:39 PMif it causes confusion, they'll certainly get feedback about it down the line!
That's why NCDOT got rid of the 40/440 concurrency, IIRC.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 26, 2017, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 04, 2017, 10:21:45 AM
Anybody know if "Future I-587" signs have been posted along US-264 yet? :hmmm:
As of today - they are not.
I've been thinking about this just now. Unless the signs have gone up since this post, then I suspect NCDOT is wanting to have I-495/Future I-495 decommissioned and replaced with I-87/Future I-87 signs before putting up Future I-587 signs. Otherwise, it would appear that Future I-587 is branching off of Future I-495.
Quote from: striderI wasn't even comparing 73/840 and 26/240 with 87/440. My point is that that NCDOT does sign both routes together whether it is pointless or not. I am sorry if you don't like it, but that is the plan.
That is your speculation. While it's plausible given the precedent you cited, we do not know if that is the plan with 87 or not. As I noted in past threads, per email correspondence with NCDOT, they were still looking at whether to remove 440 from that segment or leave it there.
Why is I-587 on Google Maps? They must have thought that it was approved. They need to get I-14 in.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on April 11, 2017, 01:58:16 PM
Why is I-587 on Google Maps? They must have thought that it was approved. They need to get I-14 in.
AFAIK,
both have been approved, but only I-14 is slated for signage within a year or so. Some Google Map "editor" is just engaging in wishful thinking at this point.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on April 11, 2017, 01:58:16 PM
Why is I-587 on Google Maps? They must have thought that it was approved. They need to get I-14 in.
Or someone just added it because they felt like it...
Since you weren't around back then, let me reference you to when Google Maps showed GA 400 as I-585 in Atlanta (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2001.msg138980#msg138980).
They did? I would have preferred the 485 number fictitiously, unless the fictional designation went north of 285. Then 585 would have been appropriate.
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.
Quote from: LM117 on April 12, 2017, 04:51:43 PM
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.
So that makes
seven of them in NC alone: 26,42,73,74,87,285 and 587. Someone over there must
really, really believe in the future! :rolleyes:
Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2017, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 12, 2017, 04:51:43 PM
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.
So that makes seven of them in NC alone: 26,42,73,74,87,285 and 587. Someone over there must really, really believe in the future! :rolleyes:
Speaking of Future NC I-285, any updates? I was under the impression all NCDOT had to do was make some minor improvements to the stretch of US-52 between I-85 and the I-85 Buisness split near Lexington. Its funny that I-587 is already shown on Google Maps after 6 months while I-285 isn't after almost 12 years!
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 12, 2017, 08:59:13 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2017, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 12, 2017, 04:51:43 PM
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.
So that makes seven of them in NC alone: 26,42,73,74,87,285 and 587. Someone over there must really, really believe in the future! :rolleyes:
Speaking of Future NC I-285, any updates? I was under the impression all NCDOT had to do was make some minor improvements to the stretch of US-52 between I-85 and the I-85 Buisness split near Lexington. Its funny that I-587 is already shown on Google Maps after 6 months while I-285 isn't after almost 12 years!
I-285 for some reason cannot be signed until upgrades is done to the US 52 section between the South Main St exit and I-40. As far as I know, there are no plans to upgrade this section of US 52 as of this time.
The one from I-85/Bus 85 split to the Lexington exit is already done.
Quote from: LM117 on April 12, 2017, 04:51:43 PM
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.
That would make sense since they update two auxiallry signs on 64 East at the 264 split yesterday. I'll take a two exit detour on my way to work this morning.
And here it is....on US 264 East in Zebulon just after Exit 20.
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/04/future-interstate-587-now-signed-in.html?m=1
I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!
Quote from: Henry on April 13, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!
Except that I-269 and I-369 are already in the Interstate system. I-587 isn't because a little more than half of the US-264 freeway doesn't meet interstate standards...yet.
Though I agree that I-587 will be finished long before I-87. Upgrading US-264 is probably the cheapest interstate upgrade in the state. The big headache with I-87 is upgrading US-17.
Quote from: LM117 on April 13, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 13, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!
Except that I-269 and I-369 are already in the Interstate system. I-587 isn't because a little more than half of the US-264 freeway doesn't meet interstate standards...yet.
Though I agree that I-587 will be finished long before I-87. Upgrading US-264 is probably the cheapest interstate upgrade in the state. The big headache with I-87 is upgrading US-17.
Which is why the US 64 segment of I-87 will likely be signed well before US 17 -- although short completed segments such as the Elizabeth City bypass might also be eligible for signage -- but I'd be surprised if anything north of Williamston was signed with anything but "future" reference until the entire US 17 stretch was completed. Completing US 264 to code will indeed be a simpler task.
Quote from: sparker on April 13, 2017, 02:56:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 13, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 13, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!
Except that I-269 and I-369 are already in the Interstate system. I-587 isn't because a little more than half of the US-264 freeway doesn't meet interstate standards...yet.
Though I agree that I-587 will be finished long before I-87. Upgrading US-264 is probably the cheapest interstate upgrade in the state. The big headache with I-87 is upgrading US-17.
Which is why the US 64 segment of I-87 will likely be signed well before US 17 -- although short completed segments such as the Elizabeth City bypass might also be eligible for signage -- but I'd be surprised if anything north of Williamston was signed with anything but "future" reference until the entire US 17 stretch was completed. Completing US 264 to code will indeed be a simpler task.
Don't forget that I-87 is designated, and can be signed, along its segment already designated.
Quote from: orulz on November 15, 2016, 08:57:22 PM
Wouldn't be the first duplicated 3di by a longshot.
69 will have 3 169s when done.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on April 13, 2017, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 13, 2017, 02:56:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 13, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 13, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!
Except that I-269 and I-369 are already in the Interstate system. I-587 isn't because a little more than half of the US-264 freeway doesn't meet interstate standards...yet.
Though I agree that I-587 will be finished long before I-87. Upgrading US-264 is probably the cheapest interstate upgrade in the state. The big headache with I-87 is upgrading US-17.
Which is why the US 64 segment of I-87 will likely be signed well before US 17 -- although short completed segments such as the Elizabeth City bypass might also be eligible for signage -- but I'd be surprised if anything north of Williamston was signed with anything but "future" reference until the entire US 17 stretch was completed. Completing US 264 to code will indeed be a simpler task.
Don't forget that I-87 is designated, and can be signed, along its segment already designated.
I don't see I-87 shields going up on the Knightdale Bypass until NCDOT gets I-495/Future I-495 decommissioned. I'm hoping that will happen during AASHTO's spring meeting in May.
It will be nice to see an I-587 that is a real freeway, instead of that freeway like arterial in Kingston with no interchanges at even either end. :) :)
Google Maps has gone ahead and designed the entirety of future I-587 as "I-587." I assume that the error will be fixed soon but take a gander while you can.
Huh, so NCDOT plans on adding two-more double-3di concurrencies to the system (785/840 and 587/795) in addition to Ohio's 271/480 concurrency.
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 17, 2017, 09:58:40 AM
Huh, so NCDOT plans on adding two-more double-3di concurrencies to the system (785/840 and 587/795) in addition to Ohio's 271/480 concurrency.
Yep. It's the only way I-785 and I-795 can connect with their parents.
Quote from: LM117 on April 17, 2017, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 17, 2017, 09:58:40 AM
Huh, so NCDOT plans on adding two-more double-3di concurrencies to the system (785/840 and 587/795) in addition to Ohio's 271/480 concurrency.
Yep. It's the only way I-785 and I-795 can connect with their parents.
I suppose for 785 they could upgrade things in Greensboro and route 785 directly down 29 and Business 85.
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 17, 2017, 09:46:16 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 17, 2017, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 17, 2017, 09:58:40 AM
Huh, so NCDOT plans on adding two-more double-3di concurrencies to the system (785/840 and 587/795) in addition to Ohio's 271/480 concurrency.
Yep. It's the only way I-785 and I-795 can connect with their parents.
I suppose for 785 they could upgrade things in Greensboro and route 785 directly down 29 and Business 85.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that was the original plan in the 1990's (I-85 was concurrent with I-40 then) but that changed when upgrading US-29 through Greensboro to interstate standards was deemed not feasible due to the expense and impact of such an upgrade. So, the decision was made to throw I-785 onto the Greensboro Urban Loop instead.
None of you would happen to be responsible for this, would you?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5YXhglT.jpg&hash=2912c2f6b86492e60fe5eb13999bfc18cb12b17d)
Quote from: epzik8 on April 21, 2017, 01:01:08 AM
None of you would happen to be responsible for this, would you?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5YXhglT.jpg&hash=2912c2f6b86492e60fe5eb13999bfc18cb12b17d)
It wasn't me! LOL
Quote from: epzik8 on April 21, 2017, 01:01:08 AM
None of you would happen to be responsible for this, would you?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5YXhglT.jpg&hash=2912c2f6b86492e60fe5eb13999bfc18cb12b17d)
Nah, it's fake news.
Must be CNN
I was inside the Greenville AAA yesterday and overheard a conversation between an AAA employee and a woman who visited looking for a TripTik. The employee said that "you need to take Interstate 587/US 264..." and the women interrupted by saying "why did they change the number?" The employee responded "I don't know and I don't understand why they did...it has been 264 for as long as I remember".
Quote from: Jordanes on May 12, 2017, 09:12:56 PM
I was inside the Greenville AAA yesterday and overheard a conversation between an AAA employee and a woman who visited looking for a TripTik. The employee said that "you need to take Interstate 587/US 264..." and the women interrupted by saying "why did they change the number?" The employee responded "I don't know and I don't understand why they did...it has been 264 for as long as I remember".
Question: since 587 has yet to be actually posted (apparently there's quite a few "future" roadside signs), WTF is an AAA employee doing referring to the route? It shouldn't be on AAA maps at this point; maybe it's showing up on Google and this person's just using that as reference (?!?!?). Doubtful that the AAA person is a Greensboro enthusiast who's jumping the gun a bit for the sake of pride!
To the AAA customer: 264's still there; it's probably not going to go away for some time. Drive it, use it, abuse it, it'll be around. The AAA person's just being a bit premature; the new Interstate number is (for the time being) an add-on, not a replacement.
Quote from: sparker on May 12, 2017, 10:27:21 PM
Quote from: Jordanes on May 12, 2017, 09:12:56 PM
I was inside the Greenville AAA yesterday and overheard a conversation between an AAA employee and a woman who visited looking for a TripTik. The employee said that "you need to take Interstate 587/US 264..." and the women interrupted by saying "why did they change the number?" The employee responded "I don't know and I don't understand why they did...it has been 264 for as long as I remember".
Question: since 587 has yet to be actually posted (apparently there's quite a few "future" roadside signs), WTF is an AAA employee doing referring to the route? It shouldn't be on AAA maps at this point; maybe it's showing up on Google and this person's just using that as reference (?!?!?). Doubtful that the AAA person is a Greensboro enthusiast who's jumping the gun a bit for the sake of pride!
That person likely looked at Google Maps, since Google has been labeling US-264 as I-587 for nearly a month now. It probably didn't occur to the employee the possibility that Google could've (and did) jump the gun with I-587. Hell, I-587 is labeled on US-264's northern bypass of Greenville between Exit 73 and Exit 80 (US-13) and that's not even part of Future I-587's corridor!
But even at that, it shouldn't take much effort for most locals (especially someone who works for AAA of all places :pan:) in Greenville to venture onto US-264 to verify whether or not I-587 shields have been posted. The first reassurance sign past Exit 73 heading East should be all it takes, if not the overhead BGS at that interchange.
The AAA employee probably should have said "future Interstate 587," or just called it US 264.
Quote from: LM117 on November 16, 2016, 10:51:18 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on November 16, 2016, 02:08:53 AMThe real question is: Why the heck does NC need so many interstates? I guess they want every freeway to be an interstate; if that's so, I can completely understand.
Not every freeway in NC is planned to become an interstate. There are plenty of freeways in the state without I-shields.
NCDOT usually doesn't seek an interstate designation unless there is strong support for it at the local level. Greenville & Pitt County have been practically screaming for US-264's upgrade since 2012. They didn't get anywhere then because they had virtually no support from the surrounding counties, who were more focused on upgrading US-70 to a freeway between I-40 near Garner and Morehead City, though an interstate designation for US-70 was not planned at the time. Most of the counties along the US-70 corridor also carried a lot of political weight in the state legislature.
So, Greenville mayor Allen Thomas met with Kinston mayor BJ Murphy in early 2013 and came up with the "Quad East" interstate(s) idea. It was a "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" kinda deal. Fast forward to 2016 and I-42, I-87, and now I-587 are born. The squeaky wheel gets the grease...
http://wnct.com/2016/08/09/how-quad-east-could-connect-four-of-eastern-carolinas-metro-areas/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/09/how-quad-east-could-connect-four-of-eastern-carolinas-metro-areas/)
There's also another possible future interstate in the works, which would make up the last part of the Quad East interstate system. It was originally planned to run from US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston to Greenville using the CF Harvey Parkway and NC-11, but that has now been expanded to include a connection to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel by following US-13 north of Greenville, which would give Greenville and the Global TransPark in Kinston interstate access to the Hampton Roads metro in Virginia. The Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act was introduced in Congress in September that would make it federal law if passed. I expect they'll re-introduce the bill next year. If it passes, it'll probably be attached to a much larger transportation bill, similar to how I-42, I-87 and I-795's extension got tacked onto the FAST Act.
https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9 (https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9)
NC 11 upgrade to interstate from future NC 148 and SW Greenville Bypass is on the 2018 STIP...
construction to start 2027...
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 29, 2017, 04:25:09 PMNC 11 upgrade to interstate from future NC 148 and SW Greenville Bypass is on the 2018 STIP...
construction to start 2027...
Looks like Kinston and Greenville are getting their wish. That leaves upgrading the remainder of NC-148, US-264 between Exit 73 and US-13, and US-13 between US-264 and US-64. The NC-148 extension will be built to interstate standards, as will the Greenville SW Bypass.
As far as I know, the idea is still alive and well among Kinston and Greenville officials, but there hasn't been much talk about it lately, nor has there been mention of having the Eastern NC Gateway Act re-introduced in Congress. Half of the Gateway Act has been rendered useless anyway since US-264 was included and has already become Future I-587 without the bill's passage. The only part of the bill that would have any effect is the NC-11/US-13 "Gateway Corridor".
I forgot to mention earlier, but other than the section that is concurrent with I-795 in Wilson (listed as Interstate maintenance), none of US-264 was included in NCDOT's final 2018-2027 STIP.
Quote from: LM117 on August 18, 2017, 02:06:31 PM
I forgot to mention earlier, but other than the section that is concurrent with I-795 in Wilson (listed as Interstate maintenance), none of US-264 was included in NCDOT's final 2018-2027 STIP.
Not particularly surprising; although not fully Interstate standard, it's a functioning freeway, so NCDOT isn't prioritizing it right now just so shields can be erected in the near term. But they've been known to advance project schedules from time to time, so what's in the STIP may not be the final word re scheduled upgrades.
Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2017, 04:48:32 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 18, 2017, 02:06:31 PM
I forgot to mention earlier, but other than the section that is concurrent with I-795 in Wilson (listed as Interstate maintenance), none of US-264 was included in NCDOT's final 2018-2027 STIP.
Not particularly surprising; although not fully Interstate standard, it's a functioning freeway, so NCDOT isn't prioritizing it right now just so shields can be erected in the near term.
I wasn't surprised, either. Other than the lack of wide shoulders outside of Wilson County, there really aren't any safety issues on US-264 to speak of, which makes it very difficult for US-264 to score well against other nearby major corridors such as US-70 and US-117, which have a lot of safety issues and carries more traffic.
I think US-264 will score better once the worst parts of US-70 and US-117 have been taken care of.
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Google Maps has removed the 587 marker from the US 264 freeway. Interstate 87 is still marked along US 64 from Interstate 440 to Interstate 95.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 21, 2017, 03:41:20 PM
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Google Maps has removed the 587 marker from the US 264 freeway. Interstate 87 is still marked along US 64 from Interstate 440 to Interstate 95.
However, just spotted that somebody added it to OSM (I-587 that is). :banghead:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49019040
I fixed it. They also showed it going around the Greenville Bypass (which it doesn't), and there were neither fut_ref tags nor a relation for the future route.
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This project could be big for Greenville. Once that stretch is completed, US-264 will meet full interstate standards between I-95 and Greenville, and could be getting some I-587 shields as soon as next year as it will link to another interstate (I-95 and I-795).
They'll finally get that blue-and-red shield, and could bring big opportunities for Greenville now having a "direct link to I-95" (granted, it's always been there via the US-264 freeway, but now they'll be able to say they have I-587 linking directly to I-95, and eventually to Raleigh)
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2019, 04:55:10 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This project could be big for Greenville. Once that stretch is completed, US-264 will meet full interstate standards between I-95 and Greenville, and could be getting some I-587 shields as soon as next year as it will link to another interstate (I-95 and I-795).
Would FHWA even allow I-587 to be signed even though it wouldn't connect to it's parent yet? I know I-369 is signed in Texarkana, TX, but I figured that was allowed because it's part of a Congressionally designated HPC. Congress had nothing to do with I-587, so I don't know if it could be signed without connecting to I-87 as well. :hmmm:
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2019, 04:55:10 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This project could be big for Greenville. Once that stretch is completed, US-264 will meet full interstate standards between I-95 and Greenville, and could be getting some I-587 shields as soon as next year as it will link to another interstate (I-95 and I-795).
They'll finally get that blue-and-red shield, and could bring big opportunities for Greenville now having a "direct link to I-95" (granted, it's always been there via the US-264 freeway, but now they'll be able to say they have I-587 linking directly to I-95, and eventually to Raleigh)
Yes, but would AASHTO approve an orphaned Interstate route, considering that it wouldn't link to I-87 yet?
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 31, 2019, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2019, 04:55:10 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This project could be big for Greenville. Once that stretch is completed, US-264 will meet full interstate standards between I-95 and Greenville, and could be getting some I-587 shields as soon as next year as it will link to another interstate (I-95 and I-795).
They'll finally get that blue-and-red shield, and could bring big opportunities for Greenville now having a "direct link to I-95" (granted, it's always been there via the US-264 freeway, but now they'll be able to say they have I-587 linking directly to I-95, and eventually to Raleigh)
Yes, but would AASHTO approve an orphaned Interstate route, considering that it wouldn't link to I-87 yet?
My guess (it's only a guess, now) is that they would approve it. It's not easy to make a case against approval that appeals to anyone except road nerds like us.
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 31, 2019, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2019, 04:55:10 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This project could be big for Greenville. Once that stretch is completed, US-264 will meet full interstate standards between I-95 and Greenville, and could be getting some I-587 shields as soon as next year as it will link to another interstate (I-95 and I-795).
They'll finally get that blue-and-red shield, and could bring big opportunities for Greenville now having a "direct link to I-95" (granted, it's always been there via the US-264 freeway, but now they'll be able to say they have I-587 linking directly to I-95, and eventually to Raleigh)
Yes, but would AASHTO approve an orphaned Interstate route, considering that it wouldn't link to I-87 yet?
Yes, see I-369 in Texas.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 31, 2019, 07:30:05 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 31, 2019, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2019, 04:55:10 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This project could be big for Greenville. Once that stretch is completed, US-264 will meet full interstate standards between I-95 and Greenville, and could be getting some I-587 shields as soon as next year as it will link to another interstate (I-95 and I-795).
They'll finally get that blue-and-red shield, and could bring big opportunities for Greenville now having a "direct link to I-95" (granted, it's always been there via the US-264 freeway, but now they'll be able to say they have I-587 linking directly to I-95, and eventually to Raleigh)
Yes, but would AASHTO approve an orphaned Interstate route, considering that it wouldn't link to I-87 yet?
Yes, see I-369 in Texas.
I thought the only reason I-369 was allowed to be signed was because of it being part of a Congressionally designated HPC. US-264/I-587 isn't a HPC, so wouldn't that be a problem? :hmm:
Quote from: LM117 on June 01, 2019, 07:36:49 AM
I thought the only reason I-369 was allowed to be signed was because of it being part of a Congressionally designated HPC. US-264/I-587 isn't a HPC, so wouldn't that be a problem? :hmm:
I really don't see how it would be an issue. To qualify for an interstate designation, it has to link to another interstate highway, and meet interstate standards. It may not be apart of an HPC, but it's apart of Future Interstate 587 which was approved by the FHWA. When the repaving / shoulder widening project is completed, the highway will meet interstate standards, link to I-95, and has already been approved by the FHWA with a Future I-587 designation. I wouldn't see a reason why it could not be signed, just because it doesn't yet link to I-87.
Here's something - In Charlotte, Interstate 485 first opened connecting to I-77 in 1994, and many pieces of it continued opening around the southern side until 2003, it was finally connected to I-85. Nothing stopped it from being called Interstate 485 even though it didn't fully link to I-85 yet. It connected to I-77, another interstate, and met interstate standards, therefore it was signed.
QuoteTo qualify for an interstate designation, it has to link to another interstate highway, and meet interstate standards.
Also needs a logical termini at the other end. General FHWA policy on such is that it should be a NHS route or a major traffic generator (like an airport or military base).
Quote from: froggie on June 01, 2019, 09:30:26 AM
QuoteTo qualify for an interstate designation, it has to link to another interstate highway, and meet interstate standards.
Also needs a logical termini at the other end. General FHWA policy on such is that it should be a NHS route or a major traffic generator (like an airport or military base).
The Greenville metropolitan area has a population of 175,000. It's the largest city in North Carolina currently not linked to the interstate highway system, is home to East Carolina University, the 4th largest university in North Carolina, and is home to the Vidant Medical Center, the third largest Level I Trauma Center in the nation, a research hospital for East Carolina University, and the largest medical center in the entire region of Eastern NC.
To sum it up, it's a major metropolitan area, and warrants an interstate designation. It's easily a logical termini, and generates a significant amount of traffic heading to I-95 and Raleigh & points west. Even the initial link to I-95 once this stretch meets full interstate standards would make sense.
I had underestimated how large the area is until I visited it a few months ago. It's not some small town.
I was speaking generally, just as you were in your comment I replied to.
Yes, in this specific instance Greenville would qualify, but WHERE in Greenville would be limited to a couple of interchanges (namely, the SW Bypass and 13 North).
Quote from: froggie on June 01, 2019, 01:28:15 PM
I was speaking generally, just as you were in your comment I replied to.
Yes, in this specific instance Greenville would qualify, but WHERE in Greenville would be limited to a couple of interchanges (namely, the SW Bypass and 13 North).
Likely just east of the SW Bypass interchange, dumping onto Stantonsburg Rd. As far as I'm aware, the US-264 Bypass / Future SW Bypass is not apart of the plan. The official Future I-587 designation approved by FHWA in 2016 spans from the I-87 / US-64 interchange at Zebulon to the US-264 / SW Bypass interchange.
An application sent to FHWA would likely request to sign part of Future I-587 as I-587 between I-95 and the already designated eastern end of the Future I-587 corridor.
This was a funny interstate plan from the middle of nowhere to Greenville and I don't really like the number or path it goes in. I'm surprised that someone was thinking about doing this type of plan anyway.
I don't ever think Greenville will get a two digit east-west interstate. I don't see where it's going to go to. Maybe onto I-540 that goes to Durham but doubt it.
I mean I-52 is not super bad but I don't really see it happening anytime soon.
I got it from this site: http://rsbodnar.tripod.com/newhiways.html
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frsbodnar.tripod.com%2FI-52_proposal.gif&hash=30df09d8614ffec784711f761c95163dcb04d458)
They should start widening the shoulders now. I'm not sure what they are waiting for.
The shoulder widening contracts for US 264 from the Wilson County line east to the Greenville Bypass were awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. of Wilson on May 28, 2019. The winning bid was $22,547,573.08. The award letter is at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-21-2019%20Central%20Letting/I-6032,%20I-6035,%2047981.3.GV1,%20etc.,%20C204332.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-21-2019%20Central%20Letting/I-6032,%20I-6035,%2047981.3.GV1,%20etc.,%20C204332.pdf)
When work has started, a listing should show up on NCDOT's Construction Progress Report (nothing yet) with a completion date.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 27, 2019, 11:21:05 PM
The shoulder widening contracts for US 264 from the Wilson County line east to the Greenville Bypass were awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. of Wilson on May 28, 2019. The winning bid was $22,547,573.08. The award letter is at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-21-2019%20Central%20Letting/I-6032,%20I-6035,%2047981.3.GV1,%20etc.,%20C204332.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-21-2019%20Central%20Letting/I-6032,%20I-6035,%2047981.3.GV1,%20etc.,%20C204332.pdf)
When work has started, a listing should show up on NCDOT's Construction Progress Report (nothing yet) with a completion date.
Neat. Also, LM117 said the section that routes Zebulon, Middlesex, Bailey, and Sims need bridge replacements to increase the clearances of it. He said it needs more than shoulder widening.
Quote from: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 07:46:03 PM
FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.
US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.
US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
This post.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 11:27:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 07:46:03 PM
FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.
US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.
US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
This post.
Yes, but I-95 to Greenville could be signed as I-587 once this shoulder widening project is completed. At that point, the route from I-95 to Greenville will have full 10 foot shoulders and meet interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 11:45:53 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 11:27:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 07:46:03 PM
FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.
US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.
US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
This post.
Yes, but I-95 to Greenville could be signed as I-587 once this shoulder widening project is completed. At that point, the route from I-95 to Greenville will have full 10 foot shoulders and meet interstate standards.
So that's the part that's being built first? I think so, even though parts of it are already interstate standards.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 11:47:23 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 11:45:53 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 11:27:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 07:46:03 PM
FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.
US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.
US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
This post.
Yes, but I-95 to Greenville could be signed as I-587 once this shoulder widening project is completed. At that point, the route from I-95 to Greenville will have full 10 foot shoulders and meet interstate standards.
So that's the part that's being built first? I think so, even though parts of it are already interstate standards.
The segment around Wilson meets interstate standards. The shoulder widening project is taking place between where the shoulder drops off to the US-264 / Greenville Southwest Bypass interchange.
That would complete an interstate-standard US-264 between I-95 and Greenville and at that point NCDOT could send an application to FHWA requesting it be designated and incorporated into the interstate highway system as Interstate 587.
What year did the Wilson bypass open was it 2004? Or 2005? I'm talking about US 264, not I-795.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 05:36:37 PM
What year did the Wilson bypass open was it 2004? Or 2005? I'm talking about US 264, not I-795.
It opened in February 2003.
Check out my Freeway Openings map for North Carolina for other highway opening dates -
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RG1L4_lwuU-BDH-f1B3f5o9cpzdIxXPR&usp=sharing
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 05:36:37 PM
What year did the Wilson bypass open was it 2004? Or 2005? I'm talking about US 264, not I-795.
It opened in February 2003.
Check out my Freeway Openings map for North Carolina for other highway opening dates -
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RG1L4_lwuU-BDH-f1B3f5o9cpzdIxXPR&usp=sharing
Nice sprjus! Is the Harvey parkway one right? It says 2004 and I think it opened in 2012 or 2013.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 05:52:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 05:36:37 PM
What year did the Wilson bypass open was it 2004? Or 2005? I'm talking about US 264, not I-795.
It opened in February 2003.
Check out my Freeway Openings map for North Carolina for other highway opening dates -
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RG1L4_lwuU-BDH-f1B3f5o9cpzdIxXPR&usp=sharing
Nice sprjus! Is the Harvey parkway one right? It says 2004 and I think it opened in 2012 or 2013.
It did open in the early 2010s... I don't know why I had put 2004, I'll fix that. Thanks for the feedback.
Edit - It opened on May 22, 2014, I had put May 22, 2004. Appears it was just a typo.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 05:55:07 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 05:52:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 05:47:11 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 05:36:37 PM
What year did the Wilson bypass open was it 2004? Or 2005? I'm talking about US 264, not I-795.
It opened in February 2003.
Check out my Freeway Openings map for North Carolina for other highway opening dates -
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RG1L4_lwuU-BDH-f1B3f5o9cpzdIxXPR&usp=sharing
Nice sprjus! Is the Harvey parkway one right? It says 2004 and I think it opened in 2012 or 2013.
It did open in the early 2010s... I don't know why I had put 2004, I'll fix that. Thanks for the feedback.
Edit - It opened on May 22, 2014, I had put May 22, 2004. Appears it was just a typo.
I see, nice fix! Anyway. I think the first part from 264 that opened was from Zebulon to Sims. And the next part was from Farmville to Greenville. And the next part was from 121 to 264 Alt was also opened in 1988. I'm surprised the Farmville bypass was opened in 1992. But some of it was an expressway just so you know, it wasn't a freeway then. If you go back to 1993 on Google Earth, you can see what I'm talking about. If I'm running a Windows computer I would put it there but I'm not so i apologize if i haven't post it yet.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:07:29 PM
I think the first part from 264 that opened was from Zebulon to Sims. And the next part was from Farmville to Greenville. And the next part was from 121 to 264 Alt was also opened in 1988. I'm surprised the Farmville bypass was opened in 1992. But some of it was an expressway just so you know, it wasn't a freeway then. If you go back to 1993 on Google Earth, you can see what I'm talking about. If I'm running a Windows computer I would put it there but I'm not so i apologize if i haven't post it yet.
If you look at the description for those segments, you'll see I indicated it was limited-access expressway when initially built, but was converted into freeway in the early 2000s with the construction of interchanges and overpasses where at-grade intersections existed. A similar process is happening along the US-74 expressway between Lumberton and Bolton, the remaining at-grade intersections are either getting interchanges, overpasses, or being closed. Most of the work has been completed over the past decade or two, though a few remain and at least 3 are under construction.
As for US-264, I don't know the exact date it fully became a freeway, but it was sometime in the early 2000s.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 06:11:11 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:07:29 PM
I think the first part from 264 that opened was from Zebulon to Sims. And the next part was from Farmville to Greenville. And the next part was from 121 to 264 Alt was also opened in 1988. I'm surprised the Farmville bypass was opened in 1992. But some of it was an expressway just so you know, it wasn't a freeway then. If you go back to 1993 on Google Earth, you can see what I'm talking about. If I'm running a Windows computer I would put it there but I'm not so i apologize if i haven't post it yet.
If you look at the description for those segments, you'll see I indicated it was limited-access expressway when initially built, but was converted into freeway in the early 2000s with the construction of interchanges and overpasses where at-grade intersections existed. A similar process is happening along the US-74 expressway between Lumberton and Bolton, the remaining at-grade intersections are either getting interchanges, overpasses, or being closed. Most of the work has been completed over the past decade or two, though a few remain and at least 3 are under construction.
As for US-264, I don't know the exact date it fully became a freeway, but it was sometime in the early 2000s.
I see the descriptions now. Interesting stuff. And I'm not sure what a "super-2" is.
Another issue is the Wilmington 140 interchange which is not up to freeway standards. I'm not sure how they will fix that.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:16:01 PM
And I'm not sure what a "super-2" is.
For the purpose of the map, it's a two-lane limited-access roadway designed to be expanded to four-lanes in the future. For instance, the US-1 freeway between Raleigh and Sanford was the same freeway it is today, except only one of the carriageways was paved and used as a two-lane roadway. The overpasses were designed for a second carriageway, but that wasn't built until the 90s.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:16:01 PM
Another issue is the Wilmington 140 interchange which is not up to freeway standards. I'm not sure how they will fix that.
What part isn't up to interstate standards?
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 06:27:18 PM
What part isn't up to interstate standards?[/quote]
This part.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2586027,-78.0814779,3a,75y,92.84h,86.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D218.41006%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:29:26 PM
This part.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2586027,-78.0814779,3a,75y,92.84h,86.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D218.41006%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
That's not I-140.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 06:33:05 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:29:26 PM
This part.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2586027,-78.0814779,3a,75y,92.84h,86.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D218.41006%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
That's not I-140.
That's the interchange that's not free flowing.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:49:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 06:33:05 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:29:26 PM
This part.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2586027,-78.0814779,3a,75y,92.84h,86.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D218.41006%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
That's not I-140.
That's the interchange that's not free flowing.
Why would it have to be free-flowing?
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 06:52:04 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:49:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 06:33:05 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 06:29:26 PM
This part.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2586027,-78.0814779,3a,75y,92.84h,86.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DV_UddFUuWzRWeU2wAJLdnQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D218.41006%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
That's not I-140.
That's the interchange that's not free flowing.
Why would it have to be free-flowing?
So it can be built to interstate standards!
Aside from the current project between the Wilson/Greene county line and Greenville, no US-264 upgrade projects were included in the final draft 2020-2029 STIP.
https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-map.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-map.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on August 22, 2019, 11:05:30 AM
Aside from the current project between the Wilson/Greene county line and Greenville, no US-264 upgrade projects were included in the final draft 2020-2029 STIP.
https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-map.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-map.aspx)
Ah that sucks
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
According to a tidbit from this morning's article, the work won't start until September 2020.
http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/03/Bypass-on-track-for-November-opening.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/03/Bypass-on-track-for-November-opening.html)
QuoteNext year, DOT also is scheduled to begin work to bring U.S. 264 from Pitt to Wilson counties up to interstate standards as part of a project to establish the new I-587. That work is to begin in September 2020.
Quote from: LM117 on September 03, 2019, 08:13:12 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
According to a tidbit from this morning's article, the work won't start until September 2020.
http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/03/Bypass-on-track-for-November-opening.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/03/Bypass-on-track-for-November-opening.html)
QuoteNext year, DOT also is scheduled to begin work to bring U.S. 264 from Pitt to Wilson counties up to interstate standards as part of a project to establish the new I-587. That work is to begin in September 2020.
According to the NCDOT Construction Progress Report listing, work on the US 264 upgrade project begins today (9/3/2019). However, it could be that like with the US 70 upgrade work that the shoulder widening work will occur after an initial paving of the existing route, so that may not start until next year. The official completion date for the project is March 2022.
If Interstate 587 is designated as planned, I think US 264's western terminus should be truncated to Greenville, or at the very least, it should be moved back to its original alignment via Alternate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville (like US 117 was when the freeway became Interstate 795).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:19:35 PM
If Interstate 587 is designated as planned, I think US 264's western terminus should be truncated to Greenville, or at the very least, it should be moved back to its original alignment via Alternate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville (like US 117 was when the freeway became Interstate 795).
Ditto with US-64 when it's converted into I-87. Parts of US-17 should also be re-routed on their old alignments as well once I-87 upgrades are completed up that way as well.
Jesus. That's a long time from now.
The project to widen the shoulders along US 264 in Pitt County to interstate standards began this morning:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-30-pitt-county-highway-upgrades.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-30-pitt-county-highway-upgrades.aspx)
Quote from: bob7374 on September 30, 2019, 11:56:57 AM
The project to widen the shoulders along US 264 in Pitt County to interstate standards began this morning:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-30-pitt-county-highway-upgrades.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-30-pitt-county-highway-upgrades.aspx)
Good! Earlier articles made it sound like it wouldn't begin until late next year. Even if US-264 wasn't planned to become an interstate, I think having wide outside shoulders in case of an emergency is a very good thing, especially on a 70mph freeway.
This just leaves the section between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. The previous NCDOT secretary said that section would need increased overhead bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 30, 2019, 11:56:57 AM
The project to widen the shoulders along US 264 in Pitt County to interstate standards began this morning:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-30-pitt-county-highway-upgrades.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-30-pitt-county-highway-upgrades.aspx)
So does that mean I-587 shields can go up after the shoulders are widened? This is exciting. Maybe you can move 264 back on its old alignment (alternate) and it can come back on the freeway at Wilson. This is my temporary proposal.
Like this
http://prntscr.com/pek7vw
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on October 03, 2019, 05:41:46 PM
So does that mean I-587 shields can go up after the shoulders are widened?
Since US-264 would be completed to interstate standards between I-95 / I-795, yes, if NCDOT were to follow through. For the time being, it would only be from the I-795 split eastward, or maybe partially overlapping I-795 and ending at I-95. But it would not going further west than I-95 until the segment to Raleigh is upgradedz
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2019, 06:05:33 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on October 03, 2019, 05:41:46 PM
So does that mean I-587 shields can go up after the shoulders are widened?
Since US-264 would be completed to interstate standards between I-95 / I-795, yes, if NCDOT were to follow through. For the time being, it would only be from the I-795 split eastward, or maybe partially overlapping I-795 and ending at I-95. But it would not going further west than I-95 until the segment to Raleigh is upgraded.
Given what was done in Greensboro, with the signing of only I-795 along the future southeastern segment of I-840 between US 29 and I-40/85, waiting for the entire loop to be completed before adding I-840 signs, I would suspect they would, if they do sign I-587 at the conclusion of the shoulder upgrade work, only sign it to the east of I-795.
Greenville has been very adamant for years about wanting an interstate connection to I-95. There's a good chance they may want NCDOT to sign I-587 as far as I-95 so that I-587 shields can be "advertised" on the BGS on I-95 at the interchange.
Also for Greenville's northern bypass, 264 would probably be moved on its old alighment (with the exception of the part from 11 to 264 "Martin Luther King Jr Highway") which is Greenville Blvd and you can have 13 and 11 run on the bypass when 264 gets moved off. I remember Google Maps saying that I-587 would go on there but it would look stupid if it really did.
Also for you LM117, One time it was proposed as I-595. I'm not sure if that number can be used before they try using I-587 because the part from Wendell to Zebulon is not up to interstate standards yet.
Cross-posting from the main North Carolina thread, I obtained the signing plans for the Greenville Southwest Bypass (R-2250) from a public records request. The plans include future signs that will eventually completely replace existing signs for westbound 264 at the cloverleaf. Not only do the plans confirm again what we already knew about 587 ending at the cloverleaf, but they also reveal that the new Interstate will be signed north-south, with northbound following westbound 264. I don't think I ever saw this mentioned anywhere before. It seems... questionable.
(https://i.imgur.com/xhi970D.png)
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 02, 2019, 10:47:09 AM
Cross-posting from the main North Carolina thread, I obtained the signing plans for the Greenville Southwest Bypass (R-2250) from a public records request. The plans include future signs that will eventually completely replace existing signs for westbound 264 at the cloverleaf. Not only do the plans confirm again what we already knew about 587 ending at the cloverleaf, but they also reveal that the new Interstate will be signed north-south, with northbound following westbound 264. I don't think I ever saw this mentioned anywhere before. It seems... questionable.
(https://i.imgur.com/xhi970D.png)
"Questionable" is an understatement. This makes no sense at all.
Add Raleigh in there too!! And I hate how they concurrent 264 with 587. 264 should go back on its old route!! Make US 264 alt "US 264!"
I'm not sure how they were thinking!!
:banghead: :banghead:
I-87 I can somewhat understand... but I-587?
The "northern" terminus is 15 miles north of the "southern" terminus, and about 50 miles west of the "southern" terminus.
On the other hand, I-87's "northern" terminus is 130 miles east of the "southern terminus", and 70 miles north of the "southern" terminus. Also, geographically, from either terminus (I-64 or I-40), you're going either "south" or "north" to the other state.
The only logical reason is because I-587 connects Greenville traffic directly to I-95 NORTH, but then it also connects to I-95 SOUTH, so that wouldn't make sense either.
EDIT - I tweeted NCDOT to see if I can get any response about why north-south is preferred over east-west, but doubt it. Might send an email directly to NCDOT if nothing comes of this.
EDIT #2 - Surprisingly got a response, they said they will get back with an answer tomorrow after "research".
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201620224954503174
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2019, 04:36:09 PM
I-87 I can somewhat understand... but I-587?
The "northern" terminus is 15 miles north of the "southern" terminus, and about 50 miles west of the "southern" terminus.
On the other hand, I-87's "northern" terminus is 130 miles east of the "southern terminus", and 70 miles north of the "southern" terminus. Also, geographically, from either terminus (I-64 or I-40), you're going either "south" or "north" to the other state.
The only logical reason is because I-587 connects Greenville traffic directly to I-95 NORTH, but then it also connects to I-95 SOUTH, so that wouldn't make sense either.
EDIT - I tweeted NCDOT to see if I can get any response about why north-south is preferred over east-west, but doubt it. Might send an email directly to NCDOT if nothing comes of this.
Honestly, I wish I-44 or even I-46 was planned so we can honestly fix that issue. Or are you trying to say it should say I-587 WEST and I-587 EAST?
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2019, 04:36:09 PM
I-87 I can somewhat understand... but I-587?
The "northern" terminus is 15 miles north of the "southern" terminus, and about 50 miles west of the "southern" terminus.
On the other hand, I-87's "northern" terminus is 130 miles east of the "southern terminus", and 70 miles north of the "southern" terminus. Also, geographically, from either terminus (I-64 or I-40), you're going either "south" or "north" to the other state.
The only logical reason is because I-587 connects Greenville traffic directly to I-95 NORTH, but then it also connects to I-95 SOUTH, so that wouldn't make sense either.
EDIT - I tweeted NCDOT to see if I can get any response about why north-south is preferred over east-west, but doubt it. Might send an email directly to NCDOT if nothing comes of this.
EDIT #2 - Surprisingly got a response, they said they will get back with an answer tomorrow after "research".
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201620224954503174
I demand royalties for my screenshot. /s
Seriously, though, it'll be interesting to see if anything comes of that. Maybe it'll turn out to just be an error. (This is the first signing plan sheet I've seen that includes I-587, though I don't know if it's the first ever to have gone out to bid.)
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 02, 2019, 05:33:31 PM
Seriously, though, it'll be interesting to see if anything comes of that. Maybe it'll turn out to just be an error. (This is the first signing plan sheet I've seen that includes I-587, though I don't know if it's the first ever to have gone out to bid.)
Well, it could indeed only be a few more years until we start seeing I-587 shields in person. Roughly 16 miles of US-264 is currently being upgraded to interstate standards between NC-11 Bypass and west of Farmville with a project resurfacing the highway and widening the outside shoulders from 4 feet to 10 feet full-depth paved shoulders, and the remaining 22 miles to I-95 already meets interstate standards. Once the upgrade project is completed, I-587 could be signed from I-95 eastward
(or southward :spin:).
I hope it's just an error. No amount of "research" would justify signing I-587 N/S just because of the short dip between I-795 and Sims. Should I-85 be signed E/W because of it's alignment between Greensboro and Hillsborough? :pan:
There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 02, 2019, 04:56:07 PM
Honestly, I wish I-44 or even I-46 was planned so we can honestly fix that issue. Or are you trying to say it should say I-587 WEST and I-587 EAST?
I-587 should be east-west... I can't logically see any 2-d running the length of US-264.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2019, 06:45:01 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 02, 2019, 04:56:07 PM
Honestly, I wish I-44 or even I-46 was planned so we can honestly fix that issue. Or are you trying to say it should say I-587 WEST and I-587 EAST?
I-587 should be east-west... I can't logically see any 2-d running the length of US-264.
Unless it's to Washington... maybe a 2-d can be signed. I was honestly saying that if I-46 was used instead of I-87 then it would make more sense.
If you look at I-195 in New Jersey, they are east-west.
Example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1619903,-74.233717,3a,75y,345.51h,105.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU--ce90cAWDaHWF2T6Tu6Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DU--ce90cAWDaHWF2T6Tu6Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D74.747696%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2019, 04:36:09 PM
EDIT #2 - Surprisingly got a response, they said they will get back with an answer tomorrow after "research".
If only SDDOT did that... I could show them some of my somewhat realistic Fictional Highways plans and know that someone in the right place actually took notice.
I agree Interstate 587 should be signed east-west. The only rational for signing 587 north-south is if the route were to replace Interstate 795 in its entirety (which, of course, is not planned).
In addition to I-587 being signed north-south not making any sense, they would be signing it the opposite of I-87. If you got on I-587 at Wilson and headed toward Raleigh, you'd be taking North 587 which would then dump you onto South 87 going into Raleigh.
Quote from: Finrod on December 03, 2019, 02:05:15 PM
In addition to I-587 being signed north-south not making any sense, they would be signing it the opposite of I-87. If you got on I-587 at Wilson and headed toward Raleigh, you'd be taking North 587 which would then dump you onto South 87 going into Raleigh.
Ye, but it looks retarded honestly. It's not the same when going from I-95 in New Jersey to I-195.
Quote from: Finrod on December 03, 2019, 02:05:15 PM
In addition to I-587 being signed north-south not making any sense, they would be signing it the opposite of I-87. If you got on I-587 at Wilson and headed toward Raleigh, you'd be taking North 587 which would then dump you onto South 87 going into Raleigh.
Yet another reason it makes no sense. :banghead:
Quote from: LM117 on December 02, 2019, 06:43:10 PM
There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201971710989414406
Somebody needs to do some further research. That's not how it works with 3d routes. Look at I-464 and I-664 in Hampton Roads for example. Both north-south routes and signed as such despite I-64 being east-west.
Looking closer, North Carolina doesn't have any 3d routes that change directions from its parent.
I-140 - East-West
I-240 - East-West
I-440 - East-West
I-540 - East-West
I-840 - East-West
I-277 - North-South
I-285 - North-South
I-795 - North-South
I-295 - North-South
I-785 - North-South
I-485 - Outer / Inner
It might be a standard procedure, but this is DEFINITELY a route that should be east-west, similar to how I-464 and I-664 are north-south despite I-64 being east-west. It would make no sense if those routes were east-west as they're clearly north-south routes, I-664 even joining with I-64 to create a circumferential beltway around the Hampton Roads metropolitan area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2019, 05:23:25 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 02, 2019, 06:43:10 PM
There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201971710989414406
It amazes me when a state transportation agency does not know the basics of interstate numbering, or US Route numbering for that matter. About 10 years ago, when the Boston newspapers actually had transportation beat writers and weekly columns, a reader wrote in regarding why Route 3 is a US route north of Boston but a state route to the south (what roadgeek hasn't asked this question?). The writer passed it along to a Mass Highway official he knew. The response was that since the route north of Boston crosses the state line into New Hampshire it needs a US shield, but because the route to the south of Boston is all in Mass. it's given a state route shield. Huh?
Here was my response. I'm not expecting much from a Twitter rep, but I plan on directly contacting NCDOT regarding this issue especially once the state applies to get the interstate highway actually sign posted once upgrades to I-95 are completed, if they. As seen in my response, the signage as east-west is illogical, confusing, and outright stupid.
https://twitter.com/sprjus4/status/1201995799216963584
https://twitter.com/sprjus4/status/1201995808020795395
https://twitter.com/sprjus4/status/1201995815151120386
https://twitter.com/sprjus4/status/1201995822667304961
This is stupid! Is it because of NCiDiOT or whatever they think is the best? I think NCDOT needs to resign I-87 as I-44 (the original plan) or I-46 if they can't do simple things of just making I-587 an east-west route.
What a crock of shit. There are plenty of examples of 2d N/S interstates having spurs signed E/W. The I-195 spurs in Maryland, NJ, and Maine are perfect examples.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2019, 05:47:51 PMAs seen in my response, the signage as east-west north-south is illogical, confusing, and outright stupid.
FTFY.
Quote from: bob7374 on December 03, 2019, 05:37:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2019, 05:23:25 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 02, 2019, 06:43:10 PM
There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201971710989414406
It amazes me when a state transportation agency does not know the basics of interstate numbering, or US Route numbering for that matter.
Hell, the guy from NCDOT that replied to me last month regarding the Goldsboro Bypass was obviously unaware that FHWA has already approved signing it as I-42.
It's also probably gonna be like former I-495 from Raleigh to I-540 interchange where that route got signed "North-South" and not "east-west".
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 04, 2019, 08:32:02 PM
It's also probably gonna be like former I-495 from Raleigh to I-540 interchange where that route got signed "North-South" and not "east-west".
At least that had some logic behind it, as I-495 only linked Raleigh to I-95 and served as a designation for north-south traffic to follow. I don't know if what NCDOT's Twitter reply was talking about applies to all 3di's or just spurs, but if the former, I may now retroactively hate the logic for I-495's directionality too...
NCDOT is under the impression that AASHTO requires ALL odd numbered interstates N-S and ALL even interstates E-W, regardless of whether it is 2 digit or 3 digit. This is what I was told when asked why I-495 was N/S, even though it was concurrent with US 64 (E/W) between Raleigh and Rocky Mount. This is wrong, as only (1 and ) 2 digit interstates are required to follow this format. There is no standard convention for 3 digit interstates, as it is left up to judgement based on the purpose of the route.
NCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation. This designation is in line with other routes on the East Coast which are diagonal. Even numbers (26 and 16) go NW-SE, while odd numbers such as 81 and 85 are more SW-NE. Even the proposed I-42 goes NW-SE. Based on the SW-NE angle, 87 as N/S route was better than an even number, but given it's shorter length I don't know that it really mattered.
The fact is there is no rule that says 587 has to be N/S, especially backwards as proposed. Loops are always hard, as they may change directions multiple times (such as I-495 around DC, I-695 around Baltimore, or I-610 around Houston), but spurs do not loop and generally go from point A to B so they are more directional. They should be signed based on their direction, not a "rule" based on their number. Their number is based on their parent and has nothing to do with the direction of the highway. Here are some examples to prove this theory:
I-190, I-390, I-590, and I-990 in NY are N/S
I-476 in PA is N/S
I-195 in NJ is E/W
I-270 in MD is N/S
I-595 in FL is E/W
I-710 in CA is N/S
Quote from: Traffic on December 04, 2019, 11:37:20 PMNCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.
NCDOT asked for I-89, but AASHTO changed it to I-87 because they think there's a better chance of I-87 connecting to I-87 in NY. Yeeeeaaahhh...that connection ain't gonna happen.
Good thing the I-795 corridor isn't a spur of I-40. Otherwise, I'd be driving E/W between Faison and Wilson. :pan:
Quote from: LM117 on December 05, 2019, 06:34:57 AM
Quote from: Traffic on December 04, 2019, 11:37:20 PMNCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.
NCDOT asked for I-89, but AASHTO changed it to I-87 because they think there's a better chance of I-87 connecting to I-87 in NY. Yeeeeaaahhh...that connection ain't gonna happen.
Good thing the I-795 corridor isn't a spur of I-40. Otherwise, I'd be driving E/W between Faison and Wilson. :pan:
Also if I-785 and I-285 were I-40 spurs.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 05, 2019, 06:58:39 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 05, 2019, 06:34:57 AM
Quote from: Traffic on December 04, 2019, 11:37:20 PMNCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.
NCDOT asked for I-89, but AASHTO changed it to I-87 because they think there's a better chance of I-87 connecting to I-87 in NY. Yeeeeaaahhh...that connection ain't gonna happen.
Good thing the I-795 corridor isn't a spur of I-40. Otherwise, I'd be driving E/W between Faison and Wilson. :pan:
Also if I-785 and I-285 were I-40 spurs.
The whole 2016 process whereby I-87 was selected reads like a Monty Python sketch where no party was on the same page as the others (and likely exacerbated by an open bar at SCOURN's spring '16 meeting in Des Moines). The obvious choice for a number for this corridor was an even number in the available "pool", adjusted for the US highways within NC and VA, which would have left 46, 54, and 56. But NCDOT doesn't duplicate routes, so they would have had to renumber whatever state route replicated the choice -- and they pissed & moaned about the political fallout stemming from folks having to change addresses along those routes, so they came up with I-89, reasoning that I-85 west of there had a sizeable E-W section as well, and NC 89 was far enough away from the proposed corridor that they could fudge the duplication aspect. But AASHTO, in their finite wisdom, rejected 89 and proposed 87 as the number despite that state highway being considerably closer to the corridor than the state selection, stating that conflict with existing state highways wasn't a sufficient factor to negate a route selection. Now -- if that rationale was reasonably applied, the even numbers should have been reconsidered and one selected -- but, as the late John Belushi might have said,
noooooooooooo! They rubber-stamped the odd-number concept but changed it to 87 for both the reasons cited above -- but also as a "commemoration" for historical events that occurred in years ending in "87" (the founding of a regional college, etc.).
This is an instance where blame can be spread around to pretty much all parties involved; NCDOT for bowing and scraping to local politics, AASHTO/SCOURN for just plain dumb reasoning (or lack thereof), and FHWA for going along with all this BS. But it looks like with I-587, the chickens have finally come home to roost with still another dumbass set of bureaucratic nonsense informed by misinformation. They made their bed with I-87; they can damn well lie in it regarding I-587!
Quote from: sparker on December 05, 2019, 06:23:50 PM
This is an instance where blame can be spread around to pretty much all parties involved; NCDOT for bowing and scraping to local politics, AASHTO/SCOURN for just plain dumb reasoning (or lack thereof), and FHWA for going along with all this BS. But it looks like with I-587, the chickens have finally come home to roost with still another dumbass set of bureaucratic nonsense informed by misinformation. They made their bed with I-87; they can damn well lie in it regarding I-587!
Agreed. As I've pointed out before, while the I-87 corridor is generally more east-west orientated, north-south is also somewhat reasonable. One way to look at it is going Raleigh <-> Norfolk, you either go SOUTH into North Carolina, or NORTH into Virginia. Being in Hampton Roads, I've always considered Raleigh to be -south-, less so -west-, though on a map it is geographically west.
But I-587 makes no sense. It's a due east-west routing, and Greenville and Raleigh are due west of each other. Not only is the number stupid, it makes no sense. Am I going north or going south when going east/west?
Quote from: sparker on December 05, 2019, 06:23:50 PM
But AASHTO, in their finite wisdom, rejected 89 and proposed 87 as the number despite that state highway being considerably closer to the corridor than the state selection, stating that conflict with existing state highways wasn't a sufficient factor to negate a route selection.
If only they had said that when California wanted an interstate to connect I-580 and I-880.
Ok, so I-587 was proposed and not I-187 because NCDOT wants to copy New York and their messed up I-587 which isn't really a freeway?
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 08:49:34 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 05, 2019, 06:23:50 PM
But AASHTO, in their finite wisdom, rejected 89 and proposed 87 as the number despite that state highway being considerably closer to the corridor than the state selection, stating that conflict with existing state highways wasn't a sufficient factor to negate a route selection.
If only they had said that when California wanted an interstate to connect I-580 and I-880.
Which should have been a relocated I-480, since that designation was deleted back in 1965 and available for reuse. The CA 480 Embarcadero freeway, still standing when the I-238 designation was approved back in 1984, could easily have been renumbered -- no one in S.F. gives a shit about such arcane details.
Extend I-87 to Rockingham or even Camden SC! Maybe they will realize that I-587 would need to be changed to an east-west route. Has anyone heard from NCDOT about them changing I-587 to East-West or no?
Also, that's probably a non-starter because of NC 87, and that number would have to be changed I think.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49279041223_bfb3648a03_m.jpg)
Is this I-587 shield on Google Maps new or has it been here a while and I'm just now noticing? Browsing the corridor, this is the only I-587 shield I have found.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 26, 2019, 06:00:27 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49279041223_bfb3648a03_m.jpg)
Is this I-587 shield on Google Maps new or has it been here a while and I'm just now noticing? Browsing the corridor, this is the only I-587 shield I have found.
It's been there for awhile and it looks like Google did not modify or fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass or sign NC 11 bypass on it. Maybe I should tell them to correct that error.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:03:48 PM
fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass
Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:03:48 PM
fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass
Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.
But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?
Quote from: vdeane on December 26, 2019, 09:16:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:03:48 PM
fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass
Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.
But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?
The Monroe Expressway outside Charlotte and All American Freeway outside Fayetteville are like that as well, and there's been no issue with them as far as routing goes.
They look off, but in reality do not affect routing. It's surprising that they actually added exit numbers to the NC-11 Bypass as well on Google.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 26, 2019, 09:16:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:03:48 PM
fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass
Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.
But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?
The Monroe Expressway outside Charlotte and All American Freeway outside Fayetteville are like that as well, and there's been no issue with them as far as routing goes.
They look off, but in reality do not affect routing. It's surprising that they actually added exit numbers to the NC-11 Bypass as well on Google.
Are white ramps better than the yellow?
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 09:47:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 26, 2019, 09:16:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:03:48 PM
fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass
Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.
But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?
The Monroe Expressway outside Charlotte and All American Freeway outside Fayetteville are like that as well, and there's been no issue with them as far as routing goes.
They look off, but in reality do not affect routing. It's surprising that they actually added exit numbers to the NC-11 Bypass as well on Google.
Are white ramps better than the yellow?
It appears that the ramps are white when one or both of the subject roads have are labeled white (on the bypass and the freeways mentioned in the above post), though just about everywhere else it's colored no matter what (except for when
both roads are labeled white). One would ask Google what the criteria for a white exit ramp is.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 26, 2019, 10:47:33 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 09:47:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 26, 2019, 09:16:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:03:48 PM
fix the at-grade crossings or white ramps on the new southwest bypass
Those are not issues that need to be fixed. They are fine.
But shouldn't ramps be colored as ramps and not as surface roads?
The Monroe Expressway outside Charlotte and All American Freeway outside Fayetteville are like that as well, and there's been no issue with them as far as routing goes.
They look off, but in reality do not affect routing. It's surprising that they actually added exit numbers to the NC-11 Bypass as well on Google.
Are white ramps better than the yellow?
It appears that the ramps are white when one or both of the subject roads have are labeled white (on the bypass and the freeways mentioned in the above post), though just about everywhere else it's colored no matter what (except for when both roads are labeled white). One would ask Google what the criteria for a white exit ramp is.
That and it also might be when a road is designated with a route number or not. All of the examples I listed with white ramps both crossed a white cross road, and the mainline freeway did not have a route number marked.
Probably just automated.
Bryan Blvd in Greensboro is also like this, freeway marked but no route number. White ramps at crossroads.
My understanding is that ramps were supposed to be colored to match the main road in the interchange and that the locations that don't are in error. In any case, attention to cartographic detail is the sign of a good map, and I don't like how the online mapping sources increasingly eschew this.
Quote from: vdeane on December 27, 2019, 09:14:33 PM
My understanding is that ramps were supposed to be colored to match the main road in the interchange and that the locations that don't are in error. In any case, attention to cartographic detail is the sign of a good map, and I don't like how the online mapping sources increasingly eschew this.
They probably did a lot better with older freeways when designing the ramps and accurately locating them. But nowadays, there are many errors.
Not just the newer freeways. Some of the inconsistencies with thing like how the end of a freeway is marked include roads that haven't changed in the entire time Google Maps has existed and which were previously done correctly. Then there's the fact that every update to the symbology has made reading the maps harder, not easier. If you ever get to look at older screenshots of Google Maps, note how much more contrast there used to be and how much more information was displayed. Really the only good change to the cartography was when they started shading the areas with businesses (also when they briefly showed toll roads and differentiated between expressways and freeways, but both were short lived, and sadly the latter caused the end of the former, since they used very similar symbols).
Could anyone explain why out of all the numbered they picked "I-587" ? I-87 in NY already has I-587 and why do we need another one for a different I-587 when there's 3 other numbers that aren't used by I-87 (NY)
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:47:43 AM
Could anyone explain why out of all the numbered they picked "I-587" ? I-87 in NY already has I-587 and why do we need another one for a different I-587 when there's 3 other numbers that aren't used by I-87 (NY)
Each state can utilize the full set of 3di options for a particular trunk "base" number; of course, very few do (the closest would be the completed x90 set in NY state and the x05's in CA, technically only missing 705). There are no requirements to use the lowest possible number; for some odd reason, the "5" prefix seems to be preferred by DOT's in numerous states, even where there's only one spur: GA has 3 such designations: I-516, I-520, and I-575; the sole odd-prefixed x40 in AR is I-540, and the only spur of I-64/VA is I-564. But it is certainly possible that with I-87 the connotation of the "187" number (penal code for murder in numerous jurisdictions!) has resulted in the avoidance of that number within both NC and NY/NJ.
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 03:36:15 AM
and the only spur of I-64/VA is I-564.
IIRC, today's I-464 linking I-64 and I-264 was originally supposed to be I-364.
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 03:36:15 AM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:47:43 AM
Could anyone explain why out of all the numbered they picked "I-587" ? I-87 in NY already has I-587 and why do we need another one for a different I-587 when there's 3 other numbers that aren't used by I-87 (NY)
Each state can utilize the full set of 3di options for a particular trunk "base" number; of course, very few do (the closest would be the completed x90 set in NY state and the x05's in CA, technically only missing 705). There are no requirements to use the lowest possible number; for some odd reason, the "5" prefix seems to be preferred by DOT's in numerous states, even where there's only one spur: GA has 3 such designations: I-516, I-520, and I-575; the sole odd-prefixed x40 in AR is I-540, and the only spur of I-64/VA is I-564. But it is certainly possible that with I-87 the connotation of the "187" number (penal code for murder in numerous jurisdictions!) has resulted in the avoidance of that number within both NC and NY/NJ.
187 is only the Penal Code for murder in the State of California. However 187 is a slang reference to murder that originated in California, so it might have been a factor.
I-587 was proposed as I-595 first. Now, why 595? No idea.
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 30, 2020, 07:28:27 AM
I-587 was proposed as I-595 first. Now, why 595? No idea.
IIRC, that was the plan before I-495 was replaced by I-87. Greenville had been pushing hard for US-264 to become an interstate since 2012.
Quote from: LM117 on March 30, 2020, 09:06:40 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 30, 2020, 07:28:27 AM
I-587 was proposed as I-595 first. Now, why 595? No idea.
IIRC, that was the plan before I-495 was replaced by I-87. Greenville had been pushing hard for US-264 to become an interstate since 2012.
I-595 would've only been from I-95 eastward, and predated the NCDOT request for I-87. I was questioning why
595.
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 30, 2020, 10:02:31 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 30, 2020, 09:06:40 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 30, 2020, 07:28:27 AM
I-587 was proposed as I-595 first. Now, why 595? No idea.
IIRC, that was the plan before I-495 was replaced by I-87. Greenville had been pushing hard for US-264 to become an interstate since 2012.
I-595 would've only been from I-95 eastward, and predated the NCDOT request for I-87. I was questioning why 595.
Ah, gotcha.
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 03:36:15 AM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:47:43 AM
Could anyone explain why out of all the numbered they picked "I-587" ? I-87 in NY already has I-587 and why do we need another one for a different I-587 when there's 3 other numbers that aren't used by I-87 (NY)
Each state can utilize the full set of 3di options for a particular trunk "base" number; of course, very few do (the closest would be the completed x90 set in NY state and the x05's in CA, technically only missing 705). There are no requirements to use the lowest possible number; for some odd reason, the "5" prefix seems to be preferred by DOT's in numerous states, even where there's only one spur: GA has 3 such designations: I-516, I-520, and I-575; the sole odd-prefixed x40 in AR is I-540, and the only spur of I-64/VA is I-564. But it is certainly possible that with I-87 the connotation of the "187" number (penal code for murder in numerous jurisdictions!) has resulted in the avoidance of that number within both NC and NY/NJ.
and yea, the I-187 number was the original number for I-287 between i-95 in Rye and I-87/I-487 in Tarrytown, but there is still I-387 and I-987 that could've been used, like with the I-84's, they don't use any of the same 3di numbers... and with I-87 (NC) why was it numbered "I-87"? because NC's History and they love the number "87", most of the I-87 Proposed route would be West-East anyways...
The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.
The whole tying the number with history was more a "official" thing just to give some "background" to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.
The whole tying the number with history was more a "official" thing just to give some "background" to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.
still, im probably gonna see what the official mileage west to east, and then south to north which one is longer, because i don't believe "I-87" was the right number for that road, "I-46" would've worked alot better but can't change the past
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.
The whole tying the number with history was more a "official" thing just to give some "background" to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.
still, im probably gonna see what the official mileage west to east, and then south to north which one is longer, because i don't believe "I-87" was the right number for that road, "I-46" would've worked alot better but can't change the past
The route is more east-west than north-south.
One way to view it is you're going north or south into either state, and you're connecting to I-95 -north- from Raleigh, or I-95 -south- from Norfolk.
I-64 between Richmond and Norfolk is signed as east-west, but I've viewed it as a more north-south route for the purposes of connecting to I-95 -north-.
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.
The whole tying the number with history was more a "official" thing just to give some "background" to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.
still, im probably gonna see what the official mileage west to east, and then south to north which one is longer, because i don't believe "I-87" was the right number for that road, "I-46" would've worked alot better but can't change the past
As I've speculated in the past, I-87 was possibly a byproduct of an open bar at the 2016 Des Moines SCOURN meeting! It's a ludicrous choice, predicated upon a state error compounded by impaired (or non-existent) reasoning. But at this juncture the only way it'll be remedied is if NCDOT seeks to designate an Interstate route over the rest of US 17 south of Williamston, at which point the E-W segment along US 64 could be split off from the N-S segment (I-97?) and given a grid-appropriate even number. Given NC's proclivity for hatching new I-corridors, such a concept is not out of the realm of possibility.
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 03:47:52 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
The original plan was for a number such as I-44 and being east-west between Raleigh and Norfolk then a few years later they eventually changed it to I-89 and being north-south, then finally AASHTO accepted it with the provision it would be I-87, supposedly since it had a better chance of linking to NY I-87, which realistically will never happen no matter how many fictional proposals people can and have made.
The whole tying the number with history was more a "official" thing just to give some "background" to the number for regular non-road people. It wasn't why it was chosen.
still, im probably gonna see what the official mileage west to east, and then south to north which one is longer, because i don't believe "I-87" was the right number for that road, "I-46" would've worked alot better but can't change the past
As I've speculated in the past, I-87 was possibly a byproduct of an open bar at the 2016 Des Moines SCOURN meeting! It's a ludicrous choice, predicated upon a state error compounded by impaired (or non-existent) reasoning. But at this juncture the only way it'll be remedied is if NCDOT seeks to designate an Interstate route over the rest of US 17 south of Williamston, at which point the E-W segment along US 64 could be split off from the N-S segment (I-97?) and given a grid-appropriate even number. Given NC's proclivity for hatching new I-corridors, such a concept is not out of the realm of possibility.
I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 03:54:26 PM
I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.
A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 03:54:26 PM
I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.
A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.
idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 03:54:26 PM
I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.
A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.
idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though
As far as the number's concerned, NCDOT's original rationale was to not conflict with nearby state highway numbers. The available even numbers without US route conflicts in either state, 42, 46, 54, and 56, were considered too close to the corridor -- and since most NC addresses on rural routes reference the highway number -- and the state didn't want to require address changes to a new state route number (they're supposedly a non-duplicating state, with a few hugely visible exceptions like NC 73 and US 74!!!!!), they chose a number (89) that at least wouldn't be intersected by the corridor (being in the western part of the state). AASHTO's SCOURN rejected the argument about state conflict, but did accept the odd-numbered argument that the corridor essentially duplicated I-85's trajectory but farther east (even though the E-W distance is vastly greater than that of N-S). But they substituted I-87 for some BS "historical" reason; also because the extant NY I-87 is considerably closer to the N-S longitudinal location of the NC/VA corridor than I-89. Like I said earlier, a misinformed and convoluted rationale -- if they rejected the state-conflict argument, they should have selected an unused even number from the available pool cited above. But it was a rainy Des Moines week; so they either elected to "rubber-stamp" the state's arguments with modifications just to get their collective asses home or they simply took advantage of being in a facility with a bar (cash or open) with dubious results. Either way they could have done a lot better!
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 03:54:26 PM
I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.
A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.
idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though
As far as the number's concerned, NCDOT's original rationale was to not conflict with nearby state highway numbers. The available even numbers without US route conflicts in either state, 42, 46, 54, and 56, were considered too close to the corridor -- and since most NC addresses on rural routes reference the highway number -- and the state didn't want to require address changes to a new state route number (they're supposedly a non-duplicating state, with a few hugely visible exceptions like NC 73 and US 74!!!!!), they chose a number (89) that at least wouldn't be intersected by the corridor (being in the western part of the state). AASHTO's SCOURN rejected the argument about state conflict, but did accept the odd-numbered argument that the corridor essentially duplicated I-85's trajectory but farther east (even though the E-W distance is vastly greater than that of N-S). But they substituted I-87 for some BS "historical" reason; also because the extant NY I-87 is considerably closer to the N-S longitudinal location of the NC/VA corridor than I-89. Like I said earlier, a misinformed and convoluted rationale -- if they rejected the state-conflict argument, they should have selected an unused even number from the available pool cited above. But it was a rainy Des Moines week; so they either elected to "rubber-stamp" the state's arguments with modifications just to get their collective asses home or they simply took advantage of being in a facility with a bar (cash or open) with dubious results. Either way they could have done a lot better!
I Don't Believe they should number interstates from what their history is, due to The Highway system has to do with anything past 1950s (Except from Interregional System) Again, when I-87 is Completed, its mainly going to be East to West, and i Feel like its going to be Signed West to East in NC but in VA its S-N
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 10:30:18 PM
I Don't Believe they should number interstates from what their history is, due to The Highway system has to do with anything past 1950s (Except from Interregional System) Again, when I-87 is Completed, its mainly going to be East to West, and i Feel like its going to be Signed West to East in NC but in VA its S-N
It's being signed north-south for the entire length. The current sign-posted segment, a 13 mile segment outside Raleigh, is north-south.
Of the route, 100 miles of US-64 is east-west, and 97 miles of US-17 (assuming I-87 is extended to I-64) is north-south.
If you think I-87 being north-south is bad though, note that NCDOT also plans on signing I-587 (a straight east-west route along US-264 between Zebulon and Greenville) as north-south. Their rational is that because the parent is north-south, the spur has to be also, which has been proven false by the countless of spur routes that differ from the parent
(i.e I-664, I-195, I-565, I-195, I-595, I-310, I-110, I-510, I-105, and plenty more). According to signage plans, north will be towards Raleigh, south will be towards Greenville.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 11:18:08 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 10:30:18 PM
I Don't Believe they should number interstates from what their history is, due to The Highway system has to do with anything past 1950s (Except from Interregional System) Again, when I-87 is Completed, its mainly going to be East to West, and i Feel like its going to be Signed West to East in NC but in VA its S-N
It's being signed north-south for the entire length. The current sign-posted segment, a 13 mile segment outside Raleigh, is north-south.
Of the route, 100 miles of US-64 is east-west, and 97 miles of US-17 (assuming I-87 is extended to I-64) is north-south.
If you think I-87 being north-south is bad though, note that NCDOT also plans on signing I-587 (a straight east-west route along US-264 between Zebulon and Greenville) as north-south. Their rational is that because the parent is north-south, the spur has to be also, which has been proven false by the countless of spur routes that differ from the parent (i.e I-664, I-195, I-565, I-195, I-595, I-310, I-110, I-510, I-105, and plenty more). According to signage plans, north will be towards Raleigh, south will be towards Greenville.
Well thanks for telling me that, it just shows more proof of how messed up the numbering and signage in the Highway system honestly... who else can agree?
And last time I was on I-587 in August 2019 I saw
East South
I-587 NY 28
So it either shows The AASHTO doesn't care what NC does, or NC is the controller of the AASHTO
I-87 isn't as bad because while it's more east-west, it is also north-south. Go south into North Carolina, go north into Virginia, go south to I-95, go north to I-95, etc.
I-587 is really the only poor directional signage since it's blatantly east-west. It's also the only example that will actually cause confusion outside the road geek world. Not sure if AASHTO had input on that decision asides from simply approving the number.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 11:48:23 PM
I-87 isn't as bad because while it's more east-west, it is also north-south. Go south into North Carolina, go north into Virginia, go south to I-95, go north to I-95, etc.
I-587 is really the only poor directional signage since it's blatantly east-west. It's also the only example that will actually cause confusion outside the road geek world. Not sure if AASHTO had input on that decision asides from simply approving the number.
And I know I keep saying this but
The Numbering is just out of question,
Let's see some other poor examples of I-587(NC)
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 11:54:18 PM
And I know I keep saying this but
The Numbering is just out of question,
How?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 11:55:39 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 11:54:18 PM
And I know I keep saying this but
The Numbering is just out of question,
How?
Well if you go to the first page and go to the bottom
Where "Interstate 69 Fan" says all the numbering solutions of I-587 that could've been used, I do believe other people know what I mean with numbering, just go to the first page and you'll see what I mean
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 11:58:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 11:55:39 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 11:54:18 PM
And I know I keep saying this but
The Numbering is just out of question,
How?
Well if you go to the first page and go to the bottom
Where "Interstate 69 Fan" says all the numbering solutions of I-587 that could've been used, I do believe other people know what I mean with numbering, just go to the first page and you'll see what I mean
Because it uses a 5 instead of a 1, 3, 7, or 9?
I don't see how that's an issue. And if it's because it's the same as New York, 3di's get duplicated all the time around the country. That's nothing new.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 12:04:12 AM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 11:58:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 11:55:39 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 11:54:18 PM
And I know I keep saying this but
The Numbering is just out of question,
How?
Well if you go to the first page and go to the bottom
Where "Interstate 69 Fan" says all the numbering solutions of I-587 that could've been used, I do believe other people know what I mean with numbering, just go to the first page and you'll see what I mean
Because it uses a 5 instead of a 1, 3, 7, or 9?
I don't see how that's an issue. And if it's because it's the same as New York, 3di's get duplicated all the time around the country. That's nothing new.
See here's the thing, 3di get duplicated with the same interstates, I-87 in Ny hasn't ran out of 3di, only used 2 (Technically 4) but currently 2, no other duplicate interstate (like 76, 84,86, or 88) uses the same, but I-87 still has leftover, if I-87 (NY) had used up all of the 3di, I wouldn't even been commenting on this page, but the fact is they had multiple other numbers they could've used but didn't
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 31, 2020, 12:12:39 AM
See here's the thing, 3di get duplicated with the same interstates, I-87 in Ny hasn't ran out of 3di, only used 2 (Technically 4) but currently 2, no other duplicate interstate (like 76, 84,86, or 88) uses the same, but I-87 still has leftover, if I-87 (NY) had used up all of the 3di, I wouldn't even been commenting on this page, but the fact is they had multiple other numbers they could've used but didn't
Still not uncommon.
See Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and California I-110.
Texas still has I-310, I-510, I-710, and I-910.
Louisiana still has I-710 and I-910.
Mississippi still has I-510, I-710, and I-910
Florida still has I-310, I-510, I-710, and I-910.
California still has I-310, I-510, and I-910.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 12:17:48 AM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 31, 2020, 12:12:39 AM
See here's the thing, 3di get duplicated with the same interstates, I-87 in Ny hasn't ran out of 3di, only used 2 (Technically 4) but currently 2, no other duplicate interstate (like 76, 84,86, or 88) uses the same, but I-87 still has leftover, if I-87 (NY) had used up all of the 3di, I wouldn't even been commenting on this page, but the fact is they had multiple other numbers they could've used but didn't
Still not uncommon.
See Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and California I-110.
Texas still has I-310, I-510, I-710, and I-910.
Louisiana still has I-710 and I-910.
Mississippi still has I-510, I-710, and I-910
Florida still has I-310, I-510, I-710, and I-910.
California still has I-310, I-510, and I-910.
Your not getting what I'm saying, I-10 is Continuous so I don't care about that, the 2 87's aren't that's what I mean, 2 different 87's but a single 10
Highways connect eastern North Carolina to the future (https://www.reflector.com/news/highways-connect-eastern-north-carolina-to-the-future/article_59c435e1-bf4b-5315-b28d-8edab6b097dd.html)
QuoteThree future interstate highways will further streamline existing eastern North Carolina corridors and will continue spurring economic development and population growth in the region during the next several decades, according to developers and transportation officials. These routes are future Interstate 87 between Raleigh and Norfolk, future I-587 between Zebulon and Greenville and future I-42 between Raleigh and Morehead City.
There are no accurate projections of when these highways will become fully completed interstates, since they are funded and scheduled for construction or improvement in sections that compete for priority, officials said. However, simply the promise of relatively continual upgrading of these routes to interstate standards over time is enough to quicken the pulse of economic development efforts in the counties and regions through which they pass. What are now rural, largely agricultural areas of eastern North Carolina will inevitably become better connected to highway networks, seaport facilities and rail terminals serving prosperous population centers throughout the eastern United States and beyond.
In some areas, like North Carolina's Crystal Coast – accessible by U.S. 70/Future I-42 – population will almost surely increase and generate a wave of related economic investment along with growth management challenges. In others, vitality-sapping population declines over recent decades will hopefully be diminished through the creation of many new jobs in advanced manufacturing, food processing, logistics and other infrastructure-dependent enterprises feeding off the new future interstates.
"Ninety percent of all new job creation takes place along these type corridors," said Christian Lockamy, a former Greenville economic developer who is now director of the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Economic Development Authority. "All three of these future eastern North Carolina interstate thruways have driven a lot of looks at our region from companies we've been working to attract. As a result, businesses and industrial parks are increasing significantly along the routes."
Greenville spur
Future I-587, announced by the North Carolina Department of Transportation in late 2016, will run from future I-87 at Zebulon east to Greenville along an upgraded U.S. 264. Once future I-87 was approved and announced, officials and economic developers from the Greenville area lobbied the state and federal agencies for a spur route on behalf of the city. This rural freeway joins Raleigh to both Wilson and Greenville, as well as overlaying I-795 between I-95 and its continuation south to Goldsboro.
There is now a funded contract for two separate projects in Greene and Pitt counties related to upgrading U.S. 264 to interstate standards, according to Cadmus Capehart, Division Construction Engineer for North Carolina DOT's Division 2. Both involve widening outside lane shoulders from four to 10 feet, as required for interstate highways, and both will take place in conjunction with a process of rehabilitating the pavement through strengthening and resurfacing. These two projects, totaling approximately $22.5 million, should be complete in late 2020 or early 2021.
These improvements will still not bring Pitt and Greene counties totally up to interstate standards because there will still have to be more work in the future on bridges to bring them into compliance with vertical clearance and required length of on and off ramps. Altogether, it's estimated that $100 million will eventually be needed to bring the entire route from Zebulon to Greenville up to interstate standards.
"Greenville was the largest city in North Carolina without an interstate connection until I-587 was approved," said Vann Rogerson, interim director and CEO of the N.C. East Alliance. "Now, though, Pitt County can be presented to potential clients as well situated for going back up toward Raleigh, up Interstate 95 and up toward the Port of Virginia via the connection near Bethel with I-87."
"Now it's vital that we stay behind future I-587 and the other future interstates in the region to make sure they – and our local economy – remain competitive as far as the process of setting funding priorities is concerned," he added.
Did they ever get around to fixing the directional signage, or is it still going to be signed north-south despite running east-west?
Quote from: X99 on March 31, 2020, 11:54:05 AM
Did they ever get around to fixing the directional signage, or is it still going to be signed north-south despite running east-west?
As far as I know, it's still going to be signed N/S. I'd like to think that somebody, somewhere, at NCDOT will eventually realize how stupid this is, but I'm not holding my breath. :banghead:
Quote from: LM117 on April 01, 2020, 05:51:51 PM
Quote from: X99 on March 31, 2020, 11:54:05 AM
Did they ever get around to fixing the directional signage, or is it still going to be signed north-south despite running east-west?
As far as I know, it's still going to be signed N/S. I'd like to think that somebody, somewhere, at NCDOT will eventually realize how stupid this is, but I'm not holding my breath. :banghead:
Apparently they think that travelers will be heading south to Greenville, and north to Raleigh.
Quote from: LM117 on April 01, 2020, 05:51:51 PM
Quote from: X99 on March 31, 2020, 11:54:05 AM
Did they ever get around to fixing the directional signage, or is it still going to be signed north-south despite running east-west?
As far as I know, it's still going to be signed N/S. I'd like to think that somebody, somewhere, at NCDOT will eventually realize how stupid this is, but I'm not holding my breath. :banghead:
Based on the new map issued by this gubernatorial administration, won't change till they are changed. So many mistakes on that document, have a copy here at home, have no faith in them changing the obvious mistake of signing 587 north/south.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 12:31:38 AM
Highways connect eastern North Carolina to the future (https://www.reflector.com/news/highways-connect-eastern-north-carolina-to-the-future/article_59c435e1-bf4b-5315-b28d-8edab6b097dd.html)
QuoteThere is now a funded contract for two separate projects in Greene and Pitt counties related to upgrading U.S. 264 to interstate standards, according to Cadmus Capehart, Division Construction Engineer for North Carolina DOT's Division 2. Both involve widening outside lane shoulders from four to 10 feet, as required for interstate highways, and both will take place in conjunction with a process of rehabilitating the pavement through strengthening and resurfacing. These two projects, totaling approximately $22.5 million, should be complete in late 2020 or early 2021.
These improvements will still not bring Pitt and Greene counties totally up to interstate standards because there will still have to be more work in the future on bridges to bring them into compliance with vertical clearance and required length of on and off ramps. Altogether, it's estimated that $100 million will eventually be needed to bring the entire route from Zebulon to Greenville up to interstate standards.
I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
Quote from: LM117 on April 02, 2020, 05:09:44 PM
I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
I can't think of any more work that would be required on US-264 between I-95 and Greenville to bring it to interstate standards. The road already meets interstate standards with the exception of the shoulders, which the current project is addressing. The current work should be sufficient enough to allow NCDOT to post I-587 (east and west) signage from I-95 to the NC-11 Bypass with approval from the FHWA.
I'd be curious to see a detailed report on what would be required to finalize the stretch up to interstate standards, from Zebulon to Greenville, similar to the studies completed on US-64 and US-17 back in 2017 and 2018 respectively.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 05:31:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 02, 2020, 05:09:44 PM
I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
I can't think of any more work that would be required on US-264 between I-95 and Greenville to bring it to interstate standards. The road already meets interstate standards with the exception of the shoulders, which the current project is addressing. The current work should be sufficient enough to allow NCDOT to post I-587 (east and west) signage from I-95 to the NC-11 Bypass with approval from the FHWA.
I'd be curious to see a detailed report on what would be required to finalize the stretch up to interstate standards, from Zebulon to Greenville, similar to the studies completed on US-64 and US-17 back in 2017 and 2018 respectively.
IIRC, back in 2016 when Nick Tennyson was NCDOT Secretary, he mentioned in an interview that the stretch between Zebulon and I-95 needed increased bridge clearances, as well as shoulder widening and maybe some ramp work, since that part is older than the stretch in Greene and Pitt Counties. I'd also like to see a report, too.
When NCDOT recently upgraded I-85 between Henderson and the VA state line, they increased bridge clearances by lowering the road rather than replace the bridges. They'll probably do the same for US-264.
Quote from: LM117 on April 02, 2020, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 05:31:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 02, 2020, 05:09:44 PM
I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
I can't think of any more work that would be required on US-264 between I-95 and Greenville to bring it to interstate standards. The road already meets interstate standards with the exception of the shoulders, which the current project is addressing. The current work should be sufficient enough to allow NCDOT to post I-587 (east and west) signage from I-95 to the NC-11 Bypass with approval from the FHWA.
I'd be curious to see a detailed report on what would be required to finalize the stretch up to interstate standards, from Zebulon to Greenville, similar to the studies completed on US-64 and US-17 back in 2017 and 2018 respectively.
IIRC, back in 2016 when Nick Tennyson was NCDOT Secretary, he mentioned in an interview that the stretch between Zebulon and I-95 needed increased bridge clearances, as well as shoulder widening and maybe some ramp work, since that part is older than the stretch in Greene and Pitt Counties. I'd also like to see a report, too.
When NCDOT recently upgraded I-85 between Henderson and the VA state line, they increased bridge clearances by lowering the road rather than replace the bridges. They'll probably do the same for US-264.
yea, it would cost less as well for them
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on April 02, 2020, 11:38:17 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 02, 2020, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2020, 05:31:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 02, 2020, 05:09:44 PM
I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
I can't think of any more work that would be required on US-264 between I-95 and Greenville to bring it to interstate standards. The road already meets interstate standards with the exception of the shoulders, which the current project is addressing. The current work should be sufficient enough to allow NCDOT to post I-587 (east and west) signage from I-95 to the NC-11 Bypass with approval from the FHWA.
I'd be curious to see a detailed report on what would be required to finalize the stretch up to interstate standards, from Zebulon to Greenville, similar to the studies completed on US-64 and US-17 back in 2017 and 2018 respectively.
IIRC, back in 2016 when Nick Tennyson was NCDOT Secretary, he mentioned in an interview that the stretch between Zebulon and I-95 needed increased bridge clearances, as well as shoulder widening and maybe some ramp work, since that part is older than the stretch in Greene and Pitt Counties. I'd also like to see a report, too.
When NCDOT recently upgraded I-85 between Henderson and the VA state line, they increased bridge clearances by lowering the road rather than replace the bridges. They'll probably do the same for US-264.
yea, it would cost less as well for them
A 3rd option is to strip off the deck, jack up the beams, insert pier extenders, and repour the deck. Only cheaper than lowering the roadway if the decks need replacing anyway.
Is I-587 still a N-S route?
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 11, 2020, 07:31:18 PM
Is I-587 still a N-S route?
No changes have been made, so presumably yes. Hopefully by the time they sign it, it'll be switched.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2020, 08:45:15 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 11, 2020, 07:31:18 PM
Is I-587 still a N-S route?
No changes have been made, so presumably yes. Hopefully by the time they sign it, it'll be switched.
We are SO apart from other states. Just saying.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 17, 2016, 08:48:29 AM
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.
Everyone must remember NCDOT's goal for 50 years has been to bring a modern, 4-lane. divided highway to within 10 miles of 96% of the population, one that is every evenly spread across the state in every nook and cranny.
So what you see is a continued realization of the state being crisscrossed by hundreds of 4-lane divided highways about every 20 miles statewide.
Therefore the interstates will differentiate those routes from all the 4-lane highways that ultimately will be the only road type practically in the future.
Quote from: vdeane on November 17, 2016, 01:07:39 PM
Agreed. I've never liked the idea of having a useless overlap between a US route (or any other route) and an interstate when the original alignment is still available and decent. IMO keep the overlaps to where necessary and don't have overlaps for the sake of having overlaps.
Wouldn't it be desirable to use the best and safest roadway for all routes when they have a chance to piggyback on a big interstate? Wouldn't it be faster too?
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 03:54:26 PM
I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.
A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.
idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though
As far as the number's concerned, NCDOT's original rationale was to not conflict with nearby state highway numbers. The available even numbers without US route conflicts in either state, 42, 46, 54, and 56, were considered too close to the corridor -- and since most NC addresses on rural routes reference the highway number -- and the state didn't want to require address changes to a new state route number (they're supposedly a non-duplicating state, with a few hugely visible exceptions like NC 73 and US 74!!!!!), they chose a number (89) that at least wouldn't be intersected by the corridor (being in the western part of the state). AASHTO's SCOURN rejected the argument about state conflict, but did accept the odd-numbered argument that the corridor essentially duplicated I-85's trajectory but farther east (even though the E-W distance is vastly greater than that of N-S). But they substituted I-87 for some BS "historical" reason; also because the extant NY I-87 is considerably closer to the N-S longitudinal location of the NC/VA corridor than I-89. Like I said earlier, a misinformed and convoluted rationale -- if they rejected the state-conflict argument, they should have selected an unused even number from the available pool cited above. But it was a rainy Des Moines week; so they either elected to "rubber-stamp" the state's arguments with modifications just to get their collective asses home or they simply took advantage of being in a facility with a bar (cash or open) with dubious results. Either way they could have done a lot better!
Growing up in a rural NC county beside Raleigh/Wake, every road had to be given a new, regular road name for 911 and emergency services to be able to locate those calling for help. So addresses that used to be " Joe Shmoe, Route 2, Box 58, Louisburg.... had to become Joe Schmoe, 3122 Ronald Tharrington Road, Louisburg, NC....
That was a big shift, but I too hate repeating interstate numbers, and I-87 could be another number or the state route numbers should have changed.
Our interstates unite the states tangibly more than anything else, and should unified without exceptions to the numbering.
Quote from: architect77 on September 28, 2020, 10:16:55 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2020, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 03:54:26 PM
I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.
A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.
idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though
As far as the number's concerned, NCDOT's original rationale was to not conflict with nearby state highway numbers. The available even numbers without US route conflicts in either state, 42, 46, 54, and 56, were considered too close to the corridor -- and since most NC addresses on rural routes reference the highway number -- and the state didn't want to require address changes to a new state route number (they're supposedly a non-duplicating state, with a few hugely visible exceptions like NC 73 and US 74!!!!!), they chose a number (89) that at least wouldn't be intersected by the corridor (being in the western part of the state). AASHTO's SCOURN rejected the argument about state conflict, but did accept the odd-numbered argument that the corridor essentially duplicated I-85's trajectory but farther east (even though the E-W distance is vastly greater than that of N-S). But they substituted I-87 for some BS "historical" reason; also because the extant NY I-87 is considerably closer to the N-S longitudinal location of the NC/VA corridor than I-89. Like I said earlier, a misinformed and convoluted rationale -- if they rejected the state-conflict argument, they should have selected an unused even number from the available pool cited above. But it was a rainy Des Moines week; so they either elected to "rubber-stamp" the state's arguments with modifications just to get their collective asses home or they simply took advantage of being in a facility with a bar (cash or open) with dubious results. Either way they could have done a lot better!
Growing up in a rural NC county beside Raleigh/Wake, every road had to be given a new, regular road name for 911 and emergency services to be able to locate those calling for help. So addresses that used to be " Joe Shmoe, Route 2, Box 58, Louisburg.... had to become Joe Schmoe, 3122 Ronald Tharrington Road, Louisburg, NC....
That was a big shift, but I too hate repeating interstate numbers, and I-87 could be another number or the state route numbers should have changed.
Our interstates unite the states tangibly more than anything else, and should unified without exceptions to the numbering.
To be fair, NY has I-88, completely intrastate and, it is copied to I-88 in IL, also ironically intrastate. I-87 in NC, if and when every completely signed would actually go to another state and possibly travel in that state. As opposed going from NYC to the border with Canada and ending.
Plus it does fit the grid. If there every was a far off thought of turning the GSP in Jersey and US 13 in Del and VA, the I-87's could possibly connect.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If they absolutely had to designate an odd number over the whole HPC #13 corridor that forms the basis for I-87, I-97 would be a far better choice re the grid, as most of the route is east of I-95. And the possibility of the southern I-87 connecting to the northern one is at best a Fritzian pipedream.
The whole notion of dismissing intrastate 1/2di's as unworthy of their numbers is both silly and gratuitous. There were 10 of the things (not counting the suffixed branches at the time) within the original 1957-58 Interstate schematic; if there had been any rational objection it probably would have been raised at the time during the numbering selection process. In any case, that concept should be moot at this point -- or at least relegated to fictional renumbering plans.
^
The southern / western terminus of the corridor is between I-95 and I-85 in Raleigh.
I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 12:07:45 AM
^
The southern / western terminus of the corridor is between I-95 and I-85 in Raleigh.
I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.
But. It. Isn't. A. North. South. Route., SCOURN and NCDOT notwithstanding. I can't stand unnecessary route duplication because someone has their collective heads up their aggregate asses! NCDOT was overruled on the main point, but SCOURN compounded the problem. They all FU'd; there
are no excuses! The saving grace is that the corridor won't be ready for prime time for decades; plenty of time for NC to plan and at least partially execute a
real N-S route all the way down US 17, at which point the numbering can be adjusted accordingly.
The one thing that has always pissed me off during my lifetime is
deliberate stupidity! And when one stupid move is compounded by another even more egregious, that's just too much for me to sit idly by without scathing comments. Like the corridor; despise the number and the process by which it was imposed!
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 12:07:45 AM
I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.
Quote from: sparker on October 01, 2020, 02:42:40 AM
But. It. Isn't. A. North. South. Route., SCOURN and NCDOT notwithstanding. <rant snipped>
I understand the argument here, but there is a big problem with our national definition of "route". Moving this over to the dreaded I-87 rant-a-thon thread.
If they built a freeway along existing US 13 between the US 264 northern loop of Greenville and terminated such freeway at existing US 64 north of Bethel, future Interstate 587 could reconnect with future Interstate 87. Of course, if that happened, the route number would likely have to be renumbered to 287.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 01, 2020, 05:00:45 PM
If they built a freeway along existing US 13 between the US 264 northern loop of Greenville and terminated such freeway at existing US 64 north of Bethel, future Interstate 587 could reconnect with future Interstate 87. Of course, if that happened, the route number would likely have to be renumbered to 287.
Something tells me that if an Interstate-grade freeway were to follow NC 11 N-S through Greenville, it would likely extend south all the way to the I-42 alignment along US 70 near Kinston -- at which point, the numbering would be up in the air as to an x87 or x42 (from my previous posts, my position on anything related to the number "87" in NC can be readily discerned).
Quote from: sparker on October 01, 2020, 02:42:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 12:07:45 AM
^
The southern / western terminus of the corridor is between I-95 and I-85 in Raleigh.
I-87 fits within the grid for a north-south route.
But. It. Isn't. A. North. South. Route., SCOURN and NCDOT notwithstanding. I can't stand unnecessary route duplication because someone has their collective heads up their aggregate asses! NCDOT was overruled on the main point, but SCOURN compounded the problem. They all FU'd; there are no excuses! The saving grace is that the corridor won't be ready for prime time for decades; plenty of time for NC to plan and at least partially execute a real N-S route all the way down US 17, at which point the numbering can be adjusted accordingly.
The one thing that has always pissed me off during my lifetime is deliberate stupidity! And when one stupid move is compounded by another even more egregious, that's just too much for me to sit idly by without scathing comments. Like the corridor; despise the number and the process by which it was imposed!
I'll bet that half of US drivers couldn't follow a route using the existing shields and signs existing today.
I'll bet that less than 10% of the population knows that interstate's numbers have additional meaning about their location, direction and purpose.
I'll bet the only 1% can correctly translate the info that the intestate number is providing.
In other worlds, it's too much effort for something that goes un-noticed by 95% of the population.
Just identify the road with a symbol and say the highway formerly called I-87 like Prince had to do.
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on March 18, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx)
QuoteThe contractor, S.T. Wooten Corporation of Wilson, started construction in May 2020.
May 2020? I recall this project being under construction when I drove along the corridor back in December 2019.
Quote from: LM117 on March 18, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx)
Can I-587 be signed on it yet?
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 11:35:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 18, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx)
Can I-587 be signed on it yet?
Theoretically, NCDOT could now request approval from the FHWA to designate the portion of US-264 between I-95 and NC-11 Bypass as Interstate 587 now that the portion east of I-95 has been upgraded to interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 12:21:57 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 11:35:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 18, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx)
Can I-587 be signed on it yet?
Theoretically, NCDOT could now request approval from the FHWA to designate the portion of US-264 between I-95 and NC-11 Bypass as Interstate 587 now that the portion east of I-95 has been upgraded to interstate standards.
They should do that. It requires exit number and signage modification though.
Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7303259,-78.0151255,3a,75y,49.57h,93.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQhiccHZib4uTsjaSjqEaug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), and many other locations, will need I-587 shields (or leave a space for them).
I really wanted US-264 to go back on its original route so they are not so gung-ho with routes.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
They should do that. It requires exit number and signage modification though.
It could, again in theory, be posted without immediate changes, similar to how I-87 was posted outside of Raleigh for a couple years before actual signage and exit numbers were change. Given the current plans :no:, exit numbers would go from Exit 1 at the NC-11 Bypass to Exit 35 at I-95.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7303259,-78.0151255,3a,75y,49.57h,93.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQhiccHZib4uTsjaSjqEaug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), and many other locations, will need I-587 shields (or leave a space for them).
Those signs would likely be replaced in a future contract depending on whenever they approve I-587 postings. Look at US-70, it meets interstate standards connecting to I-40, though they are holding off on signing it as I-42, also a similar situation with the Goldsboro Bypass.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
They should do that. It requires exit number and signage modification though.
It could, again in theory, be posted without immediate changes, similar to how I-87 was posted outside of Raleigh for a couple years before actual signage and exit numbers were change. Given the current plans :no:, exit numbers would go from Exit 1 at the NC-11 Bypass to Exit 35 at I-95.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7303259,-78.0151255,3a,75y,49.57h,93.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQhiccHZib4uTsjaSjqEaug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), and many other locations, will need I-587 shields (or leave a space for them).
Those signs would likely be replaced in a future contract depending on whenever they approve I-587 postings. Look at US-70, it meets interstate standards connecting to I-40, though they are holding off on signing it as I-42, also a similar situation with the Goldsboro Bypass.
So, I guess they are waiting for the part from Zebulon to I-95 being upgraded?
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 12:30:31 PM
So, I guess they are waiting for the part from Zebulon to I-95 being upgraded?
I'm not sure what NCDOT's plans for signing I-587 are.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 12:31:04 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 12:30:31 PM
So, I guess they are waiting for the part from Zebulon to I-95 being upgraded?
I'm not sure what NCDOT's plans for signing I-587 are.
What I really want them to do is sign I-587 an east-west route and move US-264 back on its original alignment.
https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html
This shows the exit list and how they will be done.
http://prntscr.com/10qe0cd
What is this extra space. Is a 3rd lane going there?
With the news that work to upgrade US 264 to Interstate standards in Greene and Pitt Counties has been completed (and therefore, most of the route is complete), I have finally created a standalone page for Future I-587 on my NC Future Interstates site: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html)
I've added a few photos and a map of the corridor and plan more additions (and hopefully more news about the route) in the future.
The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 22, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The extension has hardly any shoulders at all. That's why the highway is not signed.
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 22, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The extension has hardly any shoulders at all. That's why the highway is not signed.
That's not the area in question?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 11:46:41 AM
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 22, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The extension has hardly any shoulders at all. That's why the highway is not signed.
That's not the area in question?
We know that, but here is another look at US 264 near zebulon
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8284535,-78.2884019,3a,75y,326.32h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfm80fDOrvZ3Msh0apQ8zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8284535,-78.2884019,3a,75y,326.32h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfm80fDOrvZ3Msh0apQ8zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The shoulders here are in question.
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 11:46:41 AM
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 22, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The extension has hardly any shoulders at all. That's why the highway is not signed.
That's not the area in question?
We know that, but here is another look at US 264 near zebulon
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8284535,-78.2884019,3a,75y,326.32h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfm80fDOrvZ3Msh0apQ8zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8284535,-78.2884019,3a,75y,326.32h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfm80fDOrvZ3Msh0apQ8zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The shoulders here are in question.
Still not, the area currently in question for potential I-587 designation is US-264
east of I-95.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 12:03:07 PM
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 11:46:41 AM
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 22, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The extension has hardly any shoulders at all. That's why the highway is not signed.
That's not the area in question?
We know that, but here is another look at US 264 near zebulon
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8284535,-78.2884019,3a,75y,326.32h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfm80fDOrvZ3Msh0apQ8zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8284535,-78.2884019,3a,75y,326.32h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfm80fDOrvZ3Msh0apQ8zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The shoulders here are in question.
Still not, the area currently in question for potential I-587 designation is US-264 east of I-95.
OOh... I thought we were talking about from I87 all the way to I95.
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 04:10:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 12:03:07 PM
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 11:46:41 AM
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 22, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
The part near I-95 (i'm talking about the east side) Looks like it needs repaving. And the rumble strips are on an odd spot. Seems like they built highways like that in the mid 2000s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122908,-78.4096338,3a,75y,98.37h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0drwl2fwt5OMJQ6d9StPGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The extension has hardly any shoulders at all. That's why the highway is not signed.
That's not the area in question?
We know that, but here is another look at US 264 near zebulon
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8284535,-78.2884019,3a,75y,326.32h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfm80fDOrvZ3Msh0apQ8zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8284535,-78.2884019,3a,75y,326.32h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfm80fDOrvZ3Msh0apQ8zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The shoulders here are in question.
Still not, the area currently in question for potential I-587 designation is US-264 east of I-95.
OOh... I thought we were talking about from I87 all the way to I95.
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7220164,-78.0063832,3a,44.4y,222.79h,71.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB9wWTHao0Q_tMYFxLhnM_Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB9wWTHao0Q_tMYFxLhnM_Q%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D116.55379%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). It may or may not need repaving but I guess how these rumble strips were aligned in the mid 2000s. Parts of I-95 are like that too.
Quote from: snowc on March 25, 2021, 04:10:31 PM
OOh... I thought we were talking about from I87 all the way to I95.
Not for this. The discussion was whether NCDOT plans to designate US-264 as Interstate 587 between I-95 and NC-11 Bypass in Greenville due to the fact the highway now meets interstate standards and connects to an existing interstate highway (I-95), thanks to completion of a rehabilitation project east of I-95 that widened the paved shoulders to 10 ft all the way to Greenville.
Also, what bridges need to be replaced to meet interstate standards at the I-87 junction and west of I-95?
I don't see why that needs to be done. Those bridges are newer compared to the ones I-95 has.
And, I can see some trees have been cut down in the forested section. Wonder why that is
Of course, for Interstate 587 to eventually exist, Interstate 87 has to be signposted past the 64/264 split to at least the NC 39 interchange. Since upgrades to US 64 from Rolesville Road to NC 58 are not planned to be constructed in the foreseeable future, the 587 designation will have to wait until both 64 and 264 are upgraded to Interstate Standards.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 25, 2021, 08:33:17 PM
Of course, for Interstate 587 to eventually exist, Interstate 87 has to be signposted past the 64/264 split to at least the NC 39 interchange. Since upgrades to US 64 from Rolesville Road to NC 58 are not planned to be constructed in the foreseeable future, the 587 designation will have to wait until both 64 and 264 are upgraded to Interstate Standards.
And that's like +5 years from now.
^
Does I-587 have to connect to its parent to be signed? It could still connect to I-95 and be signed in the meantime easy to Greenville, with the destination of -87 assuming it will eventually keep going west in the future.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 09:13:38 PM
^
Does I-587 have to connect to its parent to be signed? It could still connect to I-95 and be signed in the meantime easy to Greenville, with the destination of -87 assuming it will eventually keep going west in the future.
The key question is whether NCDOT believes it could be signed without connecting to I-87. There are other examples of 3dis being signed and not connected to their parent which NCDOT could emulate. Currently I-369 in Texas is signed with only a connection to I-30 at one end, the rest to be built later (along with the portion of I-69 it is to connect to).
Could have been signed I-595 a long time ago and renumbered to I-587.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 25, 2021, 10:36:25 PM
Could have been signed I-595 a long time ago and renumbered to I-587.
Not really, considering the portion between Wilson and Greenville was just recently completed to interstate standards in the past few weeks.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 25, 2021, 10:36:25 PM
Could have been signed I-595 a long time ago and renumbered to I-587.
Not really, considering the portion between Wilson and Greenville was just recently completed to interstate standards in the past few weeks.
Could be a great time to request NCDOT to sign it.
I-495 was signed and didn't connect to I-95
Quote from: LM117 on March 18, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx)
This recent WNCT article has a pic showing the newly widened shoulders.
https://www.wnct.com/traffic/paving-project-on-u-s-hwy-264-in-greene-pitt-counties-ends-ahead-of-schedule/ (https://www.wnct.com/traffic/paving-project-on-u-s-hwy-264-in-greene-pitt-counties-ends-ahead-of-schedule/)
Quote from: LM117 on March 26, 2021, 12:13:11 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 18, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx)
Pic from a recent WNCT article showing the newly widened shoulders:
(https://www.wnct.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/99/2021/03/U.S.-Hwy.-264-NCDOT-photo.jpg?w=320&h=180&crop=1)
Why does it look off level?
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 26, 2021, 12:14:31 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 26, 2021, 12:13:11 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 18, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx)
Pic from a recent WNCT article showing the newly widened shoulders:
(https://www.wnct.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/99/2021/03/U.S.-Hwy.-264-NCDOT-photo.jpg?w=320&h=180&crop=1)
Why does it look off level?
Not sure.
QuoteIn April, the same contractor will begin milling and resurfacing U.S. 264 between the Southwest Bypass and U.S. 13.
Does the upcoming pavement on the Northwest portion of the bypass also involve shoulder widening, or simply routine resurfacing?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2021, 01:10:10 PM
QuoteIn April, the same contractor will begin milling and resurfacing U.S. 264 between the Southwest Bypass and U.S. 13.
Does the upcoming pavement on the Northwest portion of the bypass also involve shoulder widening, or simply routine resurfacing?
Imo I think it needs shoulder widening too so it can meet interstate standards. They should make a map for the northwest alignment.
Also, that's the last segment and all of Greenville's freeway system will all look black and new!
It's not apart of any interstate corridors though, so if anything it's merely a safety improvement, assuming shoulder widening is included.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2021, 02:11:04 PM
It's not apart of any interstate corridors though, so if anything it's merely a safety improvement, assuming shoulder widening is included.
Let's request I-287 for it.
Well that's going to require the northwestern bypass segment built and the Kinston freeway!
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2021, 01:10:10 PM
QuoteIn April, the same contractor will begin milling and resurfacing U.S. 264 between the Southwest Bypass and U.S. 13.
Does the upcoming pavement on the Northwest portion of the bypass also involve shoulder widening, or simply routine resurfacing?
Routine resurfacing, most likely. I do think they should go ahead and widen the shoulders. Even though it's not a future interstate, it's good to have wide shoulders on a 70mph freeway as a safety feature. I had to make an emergency stop once on 64/264 near Zebulon back in 2016, and it wasn't fun.
If it does become a future interstate down the road, the work on that stretch would already be done (minus the US-13 interchange), so that's an added bonus.
Quote from: LM117 on March 26, 2021, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2021, 01:10:10 PM
QuoteIn April, the same contractor will begin milling and resurfacing U.S. 264 between the Southwest Bypass and U.S. 13.
Does the upcoming pavement on the Northwest portion of the bypass also involve shoulder widening, or simply routine resurfacing?
Routine resurfacing, most likely. I do think they should go ahead and widen the shoulders. Even though it's not a future interstate, it's good to have wide shoulders on a 70mph freeway as a safety feature. I had to make an emergency stop once on 64/264 near Zebulon back in 2016, and it wasn't fun.
If it does become a future interstate down the road, the work on that stretch would already be done (minus the US-13 interchange), so that's an added bonus.
https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fd72c3ba0be144e5928a5b36931c1d61
This map tells you how bad the highway needs to be repaved.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 26, 2021, 06:14:23 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 26, 2021, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2021, 01:10:10 PM
QuoteIn April, the same contractor will begin milling and resurfacing U.S. 264 between the Southwest Bypass and U.S. 13.
Does the upcoming pavement on the Northwest portion of the bypass also involve shoulder widening, or simply routine resurfacing?
Routine resurfacing, most likely. I do think they should go ahead and widen the shoulders. Even though it's not a future interstate, it's good to have wide shoulders on a 70mph freeway as a safety feature. I had to make an emergency stop once on 64/264 near Zebulon back in 2016, and it wasn't fun.
If it does become a future interstate down the road, the work on that stretch would already be done (minus the US-13 interchange), so that's an added bonus.
https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fd72c3ba0be144e5928a5b36931c1d61
This map tells you how bad the highway needs to be repaved.
Apparently the highway has never been resurfaced since it opened in 1994.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2021, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 26, 2021, 06:14:23 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 26, 2021, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2021, 01:10:10 PM
QuoteIn April, the same contractor will begin milling and resurfacing U.S. 264 between the Southwest Bypass and U.S. 13.
Does the upcoming pavement on the Northwest portion of the bypass also involve shoulder widening, or simply routine resurfacing?
Routine resurfacing, most likely. I do think they should go ahead and widen the shoulders. Even though it's not a future interstate, it's good to have wide shoulders on a 70mph freeway as a safety feature. I had to make an emergency stop once on 64/264 near Zebulon back in 2016, and it wasn't fun.
If it does become a future interstate down the road, the work on that stretch would already be done (minus the US-13 interchange), so that's an added bonus.
https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fd72c3ba0be144e5928a5b36931c1d61
This map tells you how bad the highway needs to be repaved.
Apparently the highway has never been resurfaced since it opened in 1994.
That held up pretty well. Unlike I-795 which lasted for only like 1-2 years and the Clayton bypass was <10 years.
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.77565,-78.0634034,204m/data=!3m1!1e3) merge lane is kinda too short. I hope they fix this When they make I-587.
I say just replace all of the damn interchanges. They look relatively outdated and due for replacement.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 27, 2021, 02:48:20 PM
I say just replace all of the damn interchanges. They look relatively outdated and due for replacement.
Not really?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2021, 04:01:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 27, 2021, 02:48:20 PM
I say just replace all of the damn interchanges. They look relatively outdated and due for replacement.
Not really?
How? The merge lanes are short and the bridge clearances are not high enough.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 27, 2021, 04:02:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2021, 04:01:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 27, 2021, 02:48:20 PM
I say just replace all of the damn interchanges. They look relatively outdated and due for replacement.
Not really?
How? The merge lanes are short and the bridge clearances are not high enough.
Define "replacement".
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2021, 04:03:40 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 27, 2021, 04:02:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2021, 04:01:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 27, 2021, 02:48:20 PM
I say just replace all of the damn interchanges. They look relatively outdated and due for replacement.
Not really?
How? The merge lanes are short and the bridge clearances are not high enough.
Define "replacement".
i meant to say just widen the ramps.
NO US-264 shield here.
Seems like NCDOT forgot to add it when they replaced the sign in 2010-11.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.834397,-78.2999952,3a,75y,293.4h,95.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sejBF5j3DreJ_SC91zsCoVA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And here, there's enough room for a slip lane here, right? Should they add that?
I think US 264 should have always terminated at US 64 in Zebulon (both at its original terminus with 64, and at its existing freeway-to-freeway junction with 64). The 1996 extension of 264 (duplexed with 64) to Interstate 440 was unnecessary, in my opinion. Likewise the former 64/264 duplex on the eastern end between Manns Harbor and Nags Head.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 10, 2021, 06:00:01 PM
I think US 264 should have always terminated at US 64 in Zebulon (both at its original terminus with 64, and at its existing freeway-to-freeway junction with 64). The 1996 extension of 264 (duplexed with 64) to Interstate 440 was unnecessary, in my opinion. Likewise the former 64/264 duplex on the eastern end between Manns Harbor and Nags Head.
Greenville and Washington traffic will use US-64. Faster, less twisty and mileage.
US-64 used to approach as a directional T but it was realigned.
And for US-264 being truncated back at Zebulon, I wish NCDOT does that...
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 03:24:48 AM
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
I'd imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.
Quote from: ahj2000 on June 17, 2021, 06:17:51 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 03:24:48 AM
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
I'd imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.
Not necessarily a problem, just more that may be NCDOT's preference. That stretch won't be upgraded until it is widened to 6 lanes, likely at the end of the decade at the earliest unless it is accelerated. Then there's the segment of US-264 between US-64 and I-95.
NCDOT could request authorization from the FHWA today to designate the portion between I-95 and the NC-11 Bypass as I-587, given that stretch now meets interstate standards and connects to an interstate highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2021, 06:48:23 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on June 17, 2021, 06:17:51 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 03:24:48 AM
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
I'd imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.
Not necessarily a problem, just more that may be NCDOT's preference. That stretch won't be upgraded until it is widened to 6 lanes, likely at the end of the decade at the earliest unless it is accelerated. Then there's the segment of US-264 between US-64 and I-95.
NCDOT could request authorization from the FHWA today to designate the portion between I-95 and the NC-11 Bypass as I-587, given that stretch now meets interstate standards and connects to an interstate highway.
They didn't do it for I-42 though.
I don't think they will until all the bypasses and upgrades to US-70 are complete?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2021, 06:48:23 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on June 17, 2021, 06:17:51 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 03:24:48 AM
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
I'd imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.
Not necessarily a problem, just more that may be NCDOT's preference. That stretch won't be upgraded until it is widened to 6 lanes, likely at the end of the decade at the earliest unless it is accelerated. Then there's the segment of US-264 between US-64 and I-95.
NCDOT could request authorization from the FHWA today to designate the portion between I-95 and the NC-11 Bypass as I-587, given that stretch now meets interstate standards and connects to an interstate highway.
And you say, the bridges CAN be replaced. Are they required to be replaced though?
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 03:24:48 AM
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
Quote from: ahj2000 on June 17, 2021, 06:17:51 AM
I'd imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2021, 06:48:23 AM
Not necessarily a problem, just more that may be NCDOT's preference. That stretch won't be upgraded until it is widened to 6 lanes, likely at the end of the decade at the earliest unless it is accelerated. Then there's the segment of US-264 between US-64 and I-95.
NCDOT could request authorization from the FHWA today to designate the portion between I-95 and the NC-11 Bypass as I-587, given that stretch now meets interstate standards and connects to an interstate highway.
Might be totally wrong here, but I think that NCDOT is still wary of fellow AASHTO members rejecting a proposal and having to wait another few years to get the same renumbering issue back on the docket. Given the newer political clout wielded by the ever-growing of North Carolina congressional representatives, I would be surprised if AASHTO dared to stand in the way of future renumbering requests. However, I respect NCDOT for being careful. After all, that primary goal is to keep improving the entire network here (and not jump through unnecessary hoops to slap up Interstate shields). (Even if it seems that way to the rest of the world).
I've posted photos taken recently along the Future I-587 corridor by Adam Prince highlighting the recent completion of shoulder widening work in Greene and Pitt Counties at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html)
Quote from: ahj2000 on June 17, 2021, 06:17:51 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 03:24:48 AM
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
I'd imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.
That didn't stop NCDOT from signing I-495 between I-440 and I-540 before it was replaced by I-87. I-369 in Texas is also another example of a signed 3-di that doesn't connect with it's parent yet.
I think there's a decent chance I-587 will be signed between I-95 and Greenville. Back in late 2012/early 2013 when Greenville started their push for US-264 to become an interstate, they cared more for having an interstate connection to I-95 more than they did to Raleigh. Their initial proposal actually called for the interstate to end at I-95.
Quote from: LM117 on June 25, 2021, 01:57:42 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on June 17, 2021, 06:17:51 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 03:24:48 AM
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
I'd imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.
That didn't stop NCDOT from signing I-495 between I-440 and I-540 before it was replaced by I-87. I-369 in Texas is also another example of a signed 3-di that doesn't connect with it's parent yet.
I think there's a decent chance I-587 will be signed between I-95 and Greenville. Back in late 2012/early 2013 when Greenville started their push for US-264 to become an interstate, they cared more for having an interstate connection to I-95 more than they did to Raleigh. Their initial proposal actually called for the interstate to end at I-95.
Let's sign it I-595 before I-587 is official....
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 25, 2021, 03:25:04 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 25, 2021, 01:57:42 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on June 17, 2021, 06:17:51 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 03:24:48 AM
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
I'd imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.
That didn't stop NCDOT from signing I-495 between I-440 and I-540 before it was replaced by I-87. I-369 in Texas is also another example of a signed 3-di that doesn't connect with it's parent yet.
I think there's a decent chance I-587 will be signed between I-95 and Greenville. Back in late 2012/early 2013 when Greenville started their push for US-264 to become an interstate, they cared more for having an interstate connection to I-95 more than they did to Raleigh. Their initial proposal actually called for the interstate to end at I-95.
Let's sign it I-595 before I-587 is official....
Or just sign it as I-595 and leave it at that. The whole I-87 situation is pointless
Quote from: fillup420 on June 25, 2021, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 25, 2021, 03:25:04 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 25, 2021, 01:57:42 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on June 17, 2021, 06:17:51 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 03:24:48 AM
Do these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109341,-77.5017465,3a,75y,58.19h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLxaL7EnAcJh2cGzw0BIVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) narrow bridges prevent NCDOT from signing this I-587 already?
Those are the only ones I see when looking at the entire I-587 segment from I-95 to the Southwest Bypass.
I'd imagine the larger problem is not having 87 signed to the 64/264 split yet. In my mind, the auxiliary needs to come from the parent.
That didn't stop NCDOT from signing I-495 between I-440 and I-540 before it was replaced by I-87. I-369 in Texas is also another example of a signed 3-di that doesn't connect with it's parent yet.
I think there's a decent chance I-587 will be signed between I-95 and Greenville. Back in late 2012/early 2013 when Greenville started their push for US-264 to become an interstate, they cared more for having an interstate connection to I-95 more than they did to Raleigh. Their initial proposal actually called for the interstate to end at I-95.
Let's sign it I-595 before I-587 is official....
Or just sign it as I-595 and leave it at that. The whole I-87 situation is pointless
Given the highway would connect to I-87 near Raleigh, it would make more sense for an I-x87 designation.
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340
http://prntscr.com/16uke7q
They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 26, 2021, 12:59:08 AM
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340
http://prntscr.com/16uke7q
They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.
From this account, it appears that the northern half of the Greenville/NC 11 bypass is being considered as a part of the I-587 corridor, although IIRC the designated Interstate segment terminates at the junction of westward US 264 and that bypass. Alternately, given the recent I-designation activity in this neck of the woods, upgrading the bypass would be the "camel's nose through the door" regarding a full N-S designation between I-42 at Kinston and I-87. Guess the idea of leaving a spur hanging at Greenville just doesn't appeal much to local boosters!
Quote from: sparker on June 26, 2021, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 26, 2021, 12:59:08 AM
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340
http://prntscr.com/16uke7q
They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.
From this account, it appears that the northern half of the Greenville/NC 11 bypass is being considered as a part of the I-587 corridor, although IIRC the designated Interstate segment terminates at the junction of westward US 264 and that bypass. Alternately, given the recent I-designation activity in this neck of the woods, upgrading the bypass would be the "camel's nose through the door" regarding a full N-S designation between I-42 at Kinston and I-87. Guess the idea of leaving a spur hanging at Greenville just doesn't appeal much to local boosters!
And it would make MORE sense to make it a East-West route.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 26, 2021, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 26, 2021, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 26, 2021, 12:59:08 AM
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340
http://prntscr.com/16uke7q
They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.
From this account, it appears that the northern half of the Greenville/NC 11 bypass is being considered as a part of the I-587 corridor, although IIRC the designated Interstate segment terminates at the junction of westward US 264 and that bypass. Alternately, given the recent I-designation activity in this neck of the woods, upgrading the bypass would be the "camel's nose through the door" regarding a full N-S designation between I-42 at Kinston and I-87. Guess the idea of leaving a spur hanging at Greenville just doesn't appeal much to local boosters!
And it would make MORE sense to make it a East-West route.
As would the entirety of I-87 (and in particular Raleigh-Williamston). But, at least officially and for the time being, that ship has sailed (or limped out of port!). But this being NC and its proclivities regarding corridors and their designation, it might be a matter of staying tuned.
^ I see a much greater priority getting I-587 switched to east-west than I-87, which is more of a 50/50 route given existing cardinal directions on US-64 and US-17.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 26, 2021, 05:33:41 PM
^ I see a much greater priority getting I-587 switched to east-west than I-87, which is more of a 50/50 route given existing cardinal directions on US-64 and US-17.
Since most 3di's (with the exception of longer linear routes like CA's I-215, I-135, and I-476 generally don't have directionality attached, the easiest solution would to just not banner I-587. But if NCDOT insists on doing so, the argument for bannering E-W is bolstered by NY's rather long I-495, which
is bannered as east and west. IIRC, I-195 in RI/MA is as well. Since the chances of I-587 being fully signed before I-87 are pretty solid, applying a N-S orientation there is patently silly and likely confusing to the driving public; NCDOT should know better!
Alternative approach: redesignate it as a 2di like I-46; at 52-odd miles (not counting any extension over the Greenville bypass) it may be a bit short; but if folded back north to I-87 or south to I-42 there would be an additional 20 miles north or about 32 south. At that point any controversy over bannering would disappear.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 26, 2021, 05:33:41 PM
^ I see a much greater priority getting I-587 switched to east-west than I-87, which is more of a 50/50 route given existing cardinal directions on US-64 and US-17.
I'd hardly consider it 50/50. Keep in mind that includes the east-west portion of US 17. While it may be reasonable to sign that north-south now because US 17 is overall north-south (both within NC and nationwide), that mileage can hardly be counted as "north-south mileage" for the purposes of figuring out whether the Carolina Southway is overall north-south or east-west.
It's roughly 130 miles east-west distance between the "northern" and "southern" termini of the Southway. It's only approximately 70 miles of north-south distance between the termini. I didn't feel the reason to obsess over accuracy because such would not change the result; the route is overall east-west, no contest.
That said, I agree that signing I-587 north-south is stupid. I can't believe NC doesn't know better than that.
Quote from: vdeane on June 26, 2021, 10:12:01 PMThat said, I agree that signing I-587 north-south is stupid. I can't believe NC doesn't know better than that.
For some damn reason, NCDOT thinks that a 3-di MUST be signed as the same direction as it's parent, despite examples in other states proving otherwise. I wish I was making this up. :banghead:
Quote from: sparker on June 26, 2021, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 26, 2021, 12:59:08 AM
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340
http://prntscr.com/16uke7q
They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.
From this account, it appears that the northern half of the Greenville/NC 11 bypass is being considered as a part of the I-587 corridor, although IIRC the designated Interstate segment terminates at the junction of westward US 264 and that bypass. Alternately, given the recent I-designation activity in this neck of the woods, upgrading the bypass would be the "camel's nose through the door" regarding a full N-S designation between I-42 at Kinston and I-87. Guess the idea of leaving a spur hanging at Greenville just doesn't appeal much to local boosters!
It won't be part of I-587. That upgrade is listed because Kinston and Greenville had been pushing for an interstate from Kinston to Bethel (likely another I-x87), with the purpose of giving the Global TransPark an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia in Norfolk.
The mayors that started that push are no longer in office, so I'm not sure how big of a priority it is for their successors, though there's been very little public mention of it in recent years.
Quote from: LM117 on June 28, 2021, 02:35:20 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 26, 2021, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 26, 2021, 12:59:08 AM
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340
http://prntscr.com/16uke7q
They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.
From this account, it appears that the northern half of the Greenville/NC 11 bypass is being considered as a part of the I-587 corridor, although IIRC the designated Interstate segment terminates at the junction of westward US 264 and that bypass. Alternately, given the recent I-designation activity in this neck of the woods, upgrading the bypass would be the "camel's nose through the door" regarding a full N-S designation between I-42 at Kinston and I-87. Guess the idea of leaving a spur hanging at Greenville just doesn't appeal much to local boosters!
It won't be part of I-587. That upgrade is listed because Kinston and Greenville had been pushing for an interstate from Kinston to Bethel (likely another I-x87), with the purpose of giving the Global TransPark an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia in Norfolk.
The mayors that started that push are no longer in office, so I'm not sure how big of a priority it is for their successors, though there's been very little public mention of it in recent years.
If anything is to happen to the NC-11 corridor between Kinston and Bethel, the only time I can see it reasonably gaining traction would be in 20-30 years from now, once both I-87 and I-42 are complete in full, to close that gap in between and link Greenville to either corridor. Until then, I see the project unnecessary. Focus on I-42 then I-87 first.
Quote from: LM117 on June 28, 2021, 02:24:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 26, 2021, 10:12:01 PMThat said, I agree that signing I-587 north-south is stupid. I can't believe NC doesn't know better than that.
For some damn reason, NCDOT thinks that a 3-di MUST be signed as the same direction as it's parent, despite examples in other states proving otherwise. I wish I was making this up. :banghead:
Yup...
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201971710989414406
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2021, 02:42:26 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 28, 2021, 02:35:20 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 26, 2021, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 26, 2021, 12:59:08 AM
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=20340
http://prntscr.com/16uke7q
They want to bring this part up to interstate standards.
From this account, it appears that the northern half of the Greenville/NC 11 bypass is being considered as a part of the I-587 corridor, although IIRC the designated Interstate segment terminates at the junction of westward US 264 and that bypass. Alternately, given the recent I-designation activity in this neck of the woods, upgrading the bypass would be the "camel's nose through the door" regarding a full N-S designation between I-42 at Kinston and I-87. Guess the idea of leaving a spur hanging at Greenville just doesn't appeal much to local boosters!
It won't be part of I-587. That upgrade is listed because Kinston and Greenville had been pushing for an interstate from Kinston to Bethel (likely another I-x87), with the purpose of giving the Global TransPark an interstate connection to the Port of Virginia in Norfolk.
The mayors that started that push are no longer in office, so I'm not sure how big of a priority it is for their successors, though there's been very little public mention of it in recent years.
If anything is to happen to the NC-11 corridor between Kinston and Bethel, the only time I can see it reasonably gaining traction would be in 20-30 years from now, once both I-87 and I-42 are complete in full, to close that gap in between and link Greenville to either corridor. Until then, I see the project unnecessary. Focus on I-42 then I-87 first.
AADT is high enough for a full freeway. Even 264 going to Washington could definitely use it.
Are these bridges too narrow for I-587 to be signed on it?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6109549,-77.5017152,135m/data=!3m1!1e3
When looking at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards
The bridges are too narrow. They are not 10 feet. They are 6 feet. The ones going over US-258 are fine even though they were built at the same time.
QuoteExisting bridges can remain part of the Interstate system if they have at least 12-foot-wide (3.7 m) lanes with 3.5-foot (1.1 m) shoulder on the left and a 10-foot (3.0 m) shoulder on the right, except that longer bridges can have 3.5 feet (1.1 m) shoulders on both sides. For all bridges, the railing should be upgraded if necessary.
Look for a press release on I-587 in the next few days.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 28, 2021, 02:24:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 26, 2021, 10:12:01 PMThat said, I agree that signing I-587 north-south is stupid. I can't believe NC doesn't know better than that.
For some damn reason, NCDOT thinks that a 3-di MUST be signed as the same direction as it's parent, despite examples in other states proving otherwise. I wish I was making this up. :banghead:
Yup...
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201971710989414406
Pure stupidity. By their logic, if the Goldsboro Bypass had been an I-x95 instead of part of I-42, it would be signed N/S. JFC...
Quote from: jdunlop on August 04, 2021, 08:47:53 AM
Look for a press release on I-587 in the next few days.
Guess that means I-587 shields will be going up east of I-95 now that the upgrade is done.
For what its worth, the new 2021-22 NC State Map is out and it does not show I-587, see North Carolina thread for link.
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
The AASHTO has approved the designation of Interstate 587 along US-264 between I-95 and US-264 / NC-11 Bypass in Wilson and Pitt County at their Spring 2021 meeting. Furthermore, according to Page 12, the FHWA has also approved.
My guess is now, NCDOT will likely be signing the highway in the coming months.
"North-South" X-(
I'm not holding my breath, but I really hope NCDOT changes it's mind about signing it N/S instead of E/W. Surely, somebody there has to realize how ridiculous it is. I-587 is about as N/S as I-95 is E/W.
"To get to Raleigh from here, take I-587 North to Zebulon, then hop on I-87 South..."
(https://www.cnet.com/a/img/bvlCFKZmk9ztu2MqkSUf6YgaxZw=/1200x675/2019/05/22/1b710a6b-5f4d-4987-a046-c23674b221a3/picard-meme-facepalm.jpg)
I wonder if they'll drop US 264 once it gets done. It's a one stater and doesn't go very far.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 12, 2021, 04:05:40 PM
I wonder if they'll drop US 264 once it gets done. It's a one stater and doesn't go very far.
I believe it will revert back to its original alignment, which the current alternate route travels along; because in AASHTO eyes, the mainline and alternate routes are of equal weight. Of course, would need AASHTO approval.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 10, 2021, 02:43:02 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
The AASHTO has approved the designation of Interstate 587 along US-264 between I-95 and US-264 / NC-11 Bypass in Wilson and Pitt County at their Spring 2021 meeting. Furthermore, according to Page 12, the FHWA has also approved.
AASHTO has posted all the applications they received for the spring 2021 meeting. NCDOT's application for I-587 can be seen on pages 99 thru 105:
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf)
Quote from: LM117 on August 18, 2021, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 10, 2021, 02:43:02 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
The AASHTO has approved the designation of Interstate 587 along US-264 between I-95 and US-264 / NC-11 Bypass in Wilson and Pitt County at their Spring 2021 meeting. Furthermore, according to Page 12, the FHWA has also approved.
AASHTO has posted all the applications they received for the spring 2021 meeting. NCDOT's application for I-587 can be seen on pages 99 thru 105:
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf)
Well, at least in the application NCDOT agrees I-587 is an east-west route:
"The route begins at the I-95 interchange in Wilson County. The route is going east along existing sections of I-795, US 258 and US 264 in Wilson, Greene and Pitt Counties. The route is traveling along existing alignment, which is a multilane, divided, full access control facility.
The route is going east. The focal point cities along the route are Wilson and Greenville. The route will cover approximately 37.07 miles. The route ends at the US 264 interchange in Greenville (Pitt County)."
Quote from: LM117 on August 18, 2021, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 10, 2021, 02:43:02 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
The AASHTO has approved the designation of Interstate 587 along US-264 between I-95 and US-264 / NC-11 Bypass in Wilson and Pitt County at their Spring 2021 meeting. Furthermore, according to Page 12, the FHWA has also approved.
AASHTO has posted all the applications they received for the spring 2021 meeting. NCDOT's application for I-587 can be seen on pages 99 thru 105:
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf)
So that means I-587 is officially established? Weird that they're going from I-95 east though.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 18, 2021, 04:16:11 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 18, 2021, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 10, 2021, 02:43:02 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works. Among the changes confirmed are:
I-587 in North Carolina has been conditionally approved.
The AASHTO has approved the designation of Interstate 587 along US-264 between I-95 and US-264 / NC-11 Bypass in Wilson and Pitt County at their Spring 2021 meeting. Furthermore, according to Page 12, the FHWA has also approved.
AASHTO has posted all the applications they received for the spring 2021 meeting. NCDOT's application for I-587 can be seen on pages 99 thru 105:
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/08/USRN-Applications_Compiled_2021.pdf)
So that means I-587 is officially established? Weird that they're going from I-95 east though.
Not really; branches are supposed to connect to an existing Interstate route unless a waiver is obtained (like in S. Texas), and US 64 at the west US 264 interchange hasn't been upgraded to Interstate standard yet, so it's not yet I-87. That being said, there's no reason the section west from I-95 to US 64 couldn't be signed as a "double-ended " Interstate spur like I-140, but apparently NCDOT just doesn't want to connect it to its parent until its parent is actually designated at the junction point; it would be pointless. If the portion east of I-95/I-795 is signed, at least that puts Greenville onto the Interstate system via the 587 spur.
Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2021, 04:26:22 PM
That being said, there's no reason the section west from I-95 to US 64 couldn't be signed as a "double-ended " Interstate spur like I-140, but apparently NCDOT just doesn't want to connect it to its parent until its parent is actually designated at the junction point; it would be pointless.
US-264 also does not meet interstate standards between US-64 / Future I-87 and I-95, so that is a no-go there until that part is upgraded.
US-264 did not meet interstate standards east of Wilson, however a recent resurfacing project added full shoulders to that portion, bringing it to interstate standards, which is now being officially designated as such.
I-587 connecting to I-95 for the time being, with provisions for eventual connection to the parent (I-87) is similar to how I-369 is branched off of I-30 in Texarkana, TX, but doesn't yet meet its parent (I-69). So it's not totally unprecented.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 05:44:33 PM
US-264 also does not meet interstate standards between US-64 / Future I-87 and I-95, so that is a no-go there until that part is upgraded.
US-264 did not meet interstate standards east of Wilson, however a recent resurfacing project added full shoulders to that portion, bringing it to interstate standards, which is now being officially designated as such.
Now it makes sense -- accounting for reasons #1-20 why that section isn't slated to receive signage in the near term! I'm guessing that when US 64 is brought up to standard for I-87, US 264/I-587 won't be too far behind.
Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2021, 07:53:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 05:44:33 PM
US-264 also does not meet interstate standards between US-64 / Future I-87 and I-95, so that is a no-go there until that part is upgraded.
US-264 did not meet interstate standards east of Wilson, however a recent resurfacing project added full shoulders to that portion, bringing it to interstate standards, which is now being officially designated as such.
Now it makes sense -- accounting for reasons #1-20 why that section isn't slated to receive signage in the near term! I'm guessing that when US 64 is brought up to standard for I-87, US 264/I-587 won't be too far behind.
The stretch of US-264 between Zebulon and Sims is gonna take a little bit more than shoulder widening in order to get it to interstate standards. Back in 2016, former NCDOT secretary Nick Tennyson said that the overhead bridge clearances would need increased. Given NCDOT's budget problems right now, I don't see that upgrade happening anytime soon.
Greenville just got what they really wanted in the first place (an interstate connection to I-95), so I don't think there will be much (if any) local pressure from them to finish the remainder of I-587, and I'm pretty sure Wake County couldn't care less about having an interstate connection to Wilson and Greenville.
Quote from: LM117 on August 18, 2021, 08:39:52 PM
Greenville just got what they really wanted in the first place (an interstate connection to I-95), so I don't think there will be much (if any) local pressure from them to finish the remainder of I-587, and I'm pretty sure Wake County couldn't care less about having an interstate connection to Wilson and Greenville.
That is the only reason I-587 even exists, because some bureaucrats in Pitt County felt let out. I still can't wrap my head around why changing the number of a route thats been around for 60+ years and been on freeway alignment for ~30 years makes so much difference. Its all just a waste of money. The road will always be US 264 to me and pretty much everyone else that uses it.
Quote from: fillup420 on August 19, 2021, 04:22:28 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 18, 2021, 08:39:52 PM
Greenville just got what they really wanted in the first place (an interstate connection to I-95), so I don't think there will be much (if any) local pressure from them to finish the remainder of I-587, and I'm pretty sure Wake County couldn't care less about having an interstate connection to Wilson and Greenville.
That is the only reason I-587 even exists, because some bureaucrats in Pitt County felt let out. I still can't wrap my head around why changing the number of a route thats been around for 60+ years and been on freeway alignment for ~30 years makes so much difference. Its all just a waste of money. The road will always be US 264 to me and pretty much everyone else that uses it.
Greenville wanted it so they could use it as a marketing tool for luring companies to the area. Some (albeit not many) companies won't locate to an area unless it has nearby interstate access, and since US routes can be anything from a 2-lane road to a full-blown freeway, they sometimes write the area off without bothering to find out what quality the US route in the area is in. An interstate shield would automatically tell them that it's a freeway. I'm not saying that I agree that an interstate will automatically cause jobs to come pouring in, but that's their logic.
That said, even if I-587 never happened, I still think it's a good idea to have wide shoulders on a 70mph freeway from a safety standpoint. Personally, my only beef with I-587 is the fact that NCDOT is planning to sign it N/S instead of E/W. They have to be smoking crack.
Quote from: LM117 on August 18, 2021, 08:39:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2021, 07:53:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 05:44:33 PM
US-264 also does not meet interstate standards between US-64 / Future I-87 and I-95, so that is a no-go there until that part is upgraded.
US-264 did not meet interstate standards east of Wilson, however a recent resurfacing project added full shoulders to that portion, bringing it to interstate standards, which is now being officially designated as such.
Now it makes sense -- accounting for reasons #1-20 why that section isn't slated to receive signage in the near term! I'm guessing that when US 64 is brought up to standard for I-87, US 264/I-587 won't be too far behind.
The stretch of US-264 between Zebulon and Sims is gonna take a little bit more than shoulder widening in order to get it to interstate standards. Back in 2016, former NCDOT secretary Nick Tennyson said that the overhead bridge clearances would need increased. Given NCDOT's budget problems right now, I don't see that upgrade happening anytime soon.
Greenville just got what they really wanted in the first place (an interstate connection to I-95), so I don't think there will be much (if any) local pressure from them to finish the remainder of I-587, and I'm pretty sure Wake County couldn't care less about having an interstate connection to Wilson and Greenville.
Bridge clearances usually end up as the main obstacles to upgrading older freeway sections (cf. CA 99 in the San Joaquin Valley); shoulder work, lines of sight, ramp length, etc. can usually be addressed by spot fixes, whereas clearance -- especially for bridges under about 15'3" -- generally require a full reconstruction. Sometimes a few inches can be dealt with by "lowering the floor" of the carriageway under the bridge, but the clearances of more than a few examples need over a foot additional inside height -- hence rebuilding is often the only practical way, particularly with cast concrete structures.
Anyone with insider knowledge have any idea when we're going to see signs go up?
Quote from: ahj2000 on August 20, 2021, 12:26:33 AM
Anyone with insider knowledge have any idea when we're going to see signs go up?
Don't have any insider knowledge, but based on what happened with I-285, it could be up to 6 months after AASHTO approval for it to be initially signed and perhaps up to 2 years before overhead signs are placed along the route. I-285 was approved in May 2018, but it wasn't until that November that the first ground mounted signage went up. It wasn't until March 2020 that new overhead signs were put up between I-85 and I-40.
Would it have been possible to have given the US 264 corridor different 3di designations that did not have to wait for Interstate 87 to make it to the US 64/264 split? Maybe 264 between US 64 and Interstate 95 could have been an extension of Interstate 795, and the rest of the 264 freeway from Wilson to Greenville could have been Interstate 195/395/or 595.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 20, 2021, 07:50:54 PM
Would it have been possible to have given the US 264 corridor different 3di designations that did not have to wait for Interstate 87 to make it to the US 64/264 split? Maybe 264 between US 64 and Interstate 95 could have been an extension of Interstate 795, and the rest of the 264 freeway from Wilson to Greenville could have been Interstate 195/395/or 595.
That just seems far more confusing than what's currently proposed...
I-87 will ultimately connect Raleigh and Norfolk, and I-587 will branch off I-87 outside Raleigh to connect towards Greenville, intersecting I-95 halfway.
Having two routes is confusing than a single number.
NCDOT had 595 lined up if the freeway west of 95 was not accepted as an interstate corridor but the segment to Greenville was.
I wonder if the exit numbers and mile markers on the 795/264 overlap will be changed to that of I-587 or I-795. I was surprised when NCDOT kept 264's exit numbers since interstates are supposed to take priority in the event of an overlap with a state or US route. :hmm:
Quote from: LM117 on August 21, 2021, 04:02:52 PM
I wonder if the exit numbers and mile markers on the 795/264 overlap will be changed to that of I-587 or I-795. I was surprised when NCDOT kept 264's exit numbers since interstates are supposed to take priority in the event of an overlap with a state or US route. :hmm:
I would read that as they planned to use it for the 587/595 corridor?
Quote from: LM117 on August 21, 2021, 04:02:52 PM
I wonder if the exit numbers and mile markers on the 795/264 overlap will be changed to that of I-587 or I-795. I was surprised when NCDOT kept 264's exit numbers since interstates are supposed to take priority in the event of an overlap with a state or US route. :hmm:
My assumption would be the exit numbers for I-587. Them keeping US-264's numbers when I-795 was assigned was logical, given it's the main route. I-795 merely uses US-264's pavement to reach its independent section. The same will apply when I-587 is designated officially.
I reached out to NCDOT a few weeks ago in regards of I-587 and what might happen to US 264. I got a response today that they are indeed planning to submit a rerouting to US 264 and a elimination of US 264 ALT in the AASHTO Fall Meeting. They were even kind enough to share the draft files they plan to use in the upcoming meeting.
In the requests, they will relocate US 264 along existing US 264 Alt from Exit 51 south through Saratoga and Farmville, then in Greenville it will connect onto NC 11 Bypass north, a total of 26.43 miles relocation; that section of US 264 Alt will be eliminated.
The timeline after that depends on other factors, but they hope to have I-587 and US 264 signage done in 2022.
^ That's good news to hear. Hopefully they're planning similarly for the remainder portions of I-587 and all of I-87 in the future, to have the US highway re-routed onto its original alignment as the interstate takes over the mainline.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on August 27, 2021, 10:42:46 PM
I reached out to NCDOT a few weeks ago in regards of I-587 and what might happen to US 264. I got a response today that they are indeed planning to submit a rerouting to US 264 and a elimination of US 264 ALT in the AASHTO Fall Meeting. They were even kind enough to share the draft files they plan to use in the upcoming meeting.
In the requests, they will relocate US 264 along existing US 264 Alt from Exit 51 south through Saratoga and Farmville, then in Greenville it will connect onto NC 11 Bypass north, a total of 26.43 miles relocation; that section of US 264 Alt will be eliminated.
The timeline after that depends on other factors, but they hope to have I-587 and US 264 signage done in 2022.
Presumably, that will mean the installation of I-587 exit numbers, at least along the signed section east of I-95 at the same time the new signage is installed.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on August 27, 2021, 10:42:46 PM
I reached out to NCDOT a few weeks ago in regards of I-587 and what might happen to US 264. I got a response today that they are indeed planning to submit a rerouting to US 264 and a elimination of US 264 ALT in the AASHTO Fall Meeting. They were even kind enough to share the draft files they plan to use in the upcoming meeting.
In the requests, they will relocate US 264 along existing US 264 Alt from Exit 51 south through Saratoga and Farmville, then in Greenville it will connect onto NC 11 Bypass north, a total of 26.43 miles relocation; that section of US 264 Alt will be eliminated.
The timeline after that depends on other factors, but they hope to have I-587 and US 264 signage done in 2022.
I didn't think NCDOT would do it, but I'm glad they are. Hopefully, AASHTO will approve it. Now if NCDOT will just sign I-587 as E/W...
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 27, 2021, 11:22:41 PM
^ That's good news to hear. Hopefully they're planning similarly for the remainder portions of I-587 and all of I-87 in the future, to have the US highway re-routed onto its original alignment as the interstate takes over the mainline.
I think they will. I find it hard to believe that they'll put US-264 back on it's old alignment east of Wilson, but leave it as is west of it once I-587 reaches Zebulon.
If it happens, that also means the pointless 64/264 overlap will go bye-bye. I'm all for it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 27, 2021, 11:22:41 PM
^ That's good news to hear. Hopefully they're planning similarly for the remainder portions of I-587 and all of I-87 in the future, to have the US highway re-routed onto its original alignment as the interstate takes over the mainline.
I doubt it will go any further east than Wesley Church Rd. That part of highway sucks and is only two-lanes and gets BUSY.
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 11, 2021, 08:52:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 27, 2021, 11:22:41 PM
^ That's good news to hear. Hopefully they're planning similarly for the remainder portions of I-587 and all of I-87 in the future, to have the US highway re-routed onto its original alignment as the interstate takes over the mainline.
I doubt it will go any further east than Wesley Church Rd. That part of highway sucks and is only two-lanes and gets BUSY.
Welcome back tolbs! :colorful:
It DOES get busy!
540 is an even number yet it's signed as a N-S route. So, why not for I-587?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7465655,-78.8952704,3a,47.6y,88.94h,106.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGRGrgYsNITWOH95oikzP2A!2e0!5s20210701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 22, 2021, 07:51:36 PM
540 is an even number yet it's signed as a N-S route. So, why not for I-587?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7465655,-78.8952704,3a,47.6y,88.94h,106.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGRGrgYsNITWOH95oikzP2A!2e0!5s20210701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
that rule requires 2-digits and interstate shields, neither of which applies here
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2021, 12:30:12 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 22, 2021, 07:51:36 PM
540 is an even number yet it's signed as a N-S route. So, why not for I-587?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7465655,-78.8952704,3a,47.6y,88.94h,106.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGRGrgYsNITWOH95oikzP2A!2e0!5s20210701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
that rule requires 2-digits and interstate shields, neither of which applies here
NCDOT unfortunately doesn't realize the former. The latter would be why this section is signed north-south. I briefly got my hopes up that we could give NCDOT an example to make them come to their senses, but no, it's NC 540 and not I-540 (which is in fact signed east-west).
State transportation secretary hopes for I-587 designation in 2022 (https://www.reflector.com/news/local/state-transportation-secretary-hopes-for-i-587-designation-in-2022/article_8aa5573e-1b30-55a2-8574-d9807bd9af25.html)
QuoteA state transportation department official gave a status update on the future of I-587 and other roadway projects during a virtual event sponsored by the Greenville-Pitt County Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.
Transportation Secretary J. Eric Boyette said $26 million has been spent on resurfacing, installing guardrails and widening highway shoulders to bring the stretch of U.S. 264 between Greenville and Zebulon up to interstate standards.
"We understand what it means for North Carolina, especially for Greenville and Pitt County," Boyette said. "This will be the first conversation to a major interstate.
"It's not only the interstate designation," he said. "It plays a role for improving the transportation infrastructure for us as a state, but there is job creation, access to health care and recreation. It's how we connect our state across all our county lines."
It's expected the Federal Highway Administration will rule on its interstate designation sometime in 2022, Boyette said.
Certified public accountant Benny Hardy asked what residents could do to ensure the interstate designation remains a priority.
The bulk of the physical work is complete, said Thomas Taft Jr., Division 2 representative on the state Board of Transportation.
"I think it's just a matter of keeping the pressure on the feds to not let this slip behind anymore," Taft said. "It's really more of a squeaky wheel scenario, not to overuse that."
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 23, 2021, 05:15:23 PM
State transportation secretary hopes for I-587 designation in 2022 (https://www.reflector.com/news/local/state-transportation-secretary-hopes-for-i-587-designation-in-2022/article_8aa5573e-1b30-55a2-8574-d9807bd9af25.html)
QuoteA state transportation department official gave a status update on the future of I-587 and other roadway projects during a virtual event sponsored by the Greenville-Pitt County Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.
Transportation Secretary J. Eric Boyette said $26 million has been spent on resurfacing, installing guardrails and widening highway shoulders to bring the stretch of U.S. 264 between Greenville and Zebulon up to interstate standards.
"We understand what it means for North Carolina, especially for Greenville and Pitt County," Boyette said. "This will be the first conversation to a major interstate.
"It's not only the interstate designation," he said. "It plays a role for improving the transportation infrastructure for us as a state, but there is job creation, access to health care and recreation. It's how we connect our state across all our county lines."
It's expected the Federal Highway Administration will rule on its interstate designation sometime in 2022, Boyette said.
Certified public accountant Benny Hardy asked what residents could do to ensure the interstate designation remains a priority.
The bulk of the physical work is complete, said Thomas Taft Jr., Division 2 representative on the state Board of Transportation.
"I think it's just a matter of keeping the pressure on the feds to not let this slip behind anymore," Taft said. "It's really more of a squeaky wheel scenario, not to overuse that."
That would be news to AASHTO which approved the I-587 designation based on getting word from the FHWA that it had already approved the route. Either the news hasn't gotten to the Secretary's office or, since they don't have plans to put up signs until 2022, they are using this as the excuse why it is not being signed immediately.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2021, 11:45:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 23, 2021, 05:15:23 PM
State transportation secretary hopes for I-587 designation in 2022 (https://www.reflector.com/news/local/state-transportation-secretary-hopes-for-i-587-designation-in-2022/article_8aa5573e-1b30-55a2-8574-d9807bd9af25.html)
QuoteA state transportation department official gave a status update on the future of I-587 and other roadway projects during a virtual event sponsored by the Greenville-Pitt County Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.
Transportation Secretary J. Eric Boyette said $26 million has been spent on resurfacing, installing guardrails and widening highway shoulders to bring the stretch of U.S. 264 between Greenville and Zebulon up to interstate standards.
"We understand what it means for North Carolina, especially for Greenville and Pitt County," Boyette said. "This will be the first conversation to a major interstate.
"It's not only the interstate designation," he said. "It plays a role for improving the transportation infrastructure for us as a state, but there is job creation, access to health care and recreation. It's how we connect our state across all our county lines."
It's expected the Federal Highway Administration will rule on its interstate designation sometime in 2022, Boyette said.
Certified public accountant Benny Hardy asked what residents could do to ensure the interstate designation remains a priority.
The bulk of the physical work is complete, said Thomas Taft Jr., Division 2 representative on the state Board of Transportation.
"I think it's just a matter of keeping the pressure on the feds to not let this slip behind anymore," Taft said. "It's really more of a squeaky wheel scenario, not to overuse that."
That would be news to AASHTO which approved the I-587 designation based on getting word from the FHWA that it had already approved the route. Either the news hasn't gotten to the Secretary's office or, since they don't have plans to put up signs until 2022, they are using this as the excuse why it is not being signed immediately.
There is an obvious lack of communication within NCDOT. I found that out firsthand when I emailed them a question that asked what the timetable was for putting I-42 shields on the Goldsboro Bypass, and the guy who responded to me was under the impression that it was still "Future I-42". This was after former NCDOT Chief Engineer Tim Little told the US-70 Corridor Commission that FHWA had given it's approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42. I suspect this is another case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
WashuOtaku noted upthread that NCDOT is planning to seek approval to re-route US-264 onto it's old alignment between Saratoga and Greenville, so that also may be the reason for the delay in signing I-587.
If Boyette really is unaware that FHWA has already approved I-587 while other NCDOT employees were and didn't tell him, then that's just embarrassing.
If US-264 does get rerouted between Saratoga and Greenville, will US-264 Alternate be converted to a business route? Since it's only one town it goes through as apposed to an alternate which goes through several.
I hope it doesn't get rerouted where US-13 runs on because that's a clogged part.
^ I don't think any of the re-routings is going to increase actual traffic volumes on one of the arterial routes. Though traffic would still follow the interstate.
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 25, 2021, 02:39:25 PM
If US-264 does get rerouted between Saratoga and Greenville, will US-264 Alternate be converted to a business route? Since it's only one town it goes through as apposed to an alternate which goes through several.
I hope it doesn't get rerouted where US-13 runs on because that's a clogged part.
No. US 264 Alternative will remain north of Saratoga going towards Wilson. It is just the part between Saratoga and Greenville where they want US-264 to be put back on.
Quote from: Strider on September 26, 2021, 06:48:56 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 25, 2021, 02:39:25 PM
If US-264 does get rerouted between Saratoga and Greenville, will US-264 Alternate be converted to a business route? Since it's only one town it goes through as apposed to an alternate which goes through several.
I hope it doesn't get rerouted where US-13 runs on because that's a clogged part.
No. US 264 Alternative will remain north of Saratoga going towards Wilson. It is just the part between Saratoga and Greenville where they want US-264 to be put back on.
I'm talking about east of Wilson.
Which option do you guys like the best?
Option 1: http://prntscr.com/1tw0f95
Option 2: http://prntscr.com/1tw0n1u
Option 3: http://prntscr.com/1tw0qre the non-freeway section of Martin Luther King Jr Highway will have no route number.
For me, I like option 1 the best.
Quote from: LM117 on March 18, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
A contract was awarded for repaving US-264 in Greene and Pitt counties. The project includes shoulder widening, which will bring this stretch up to interstate standards, leaving only the stretch between Sims and Zebulon to contend with. That stretch will need increased bridge clearances in addition to wider shoulders.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-pavement-rehab-greene-pitt-counties.aspx)
This upgrade has been completed ahead of schedule.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-17-pitt-greene-highway-paving-complete.aspx)
For anyone that wants to take a 'virtual' tour of the recent upgrade, new Google Streetview images taken in June 2021 are available.
Quote from: LM117 on September 24, 2021, 04:12:38 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2021, 11:45:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 23, 2021, 05:15:23 PM
State transportation secretary hopes for I-587 designation in 2022 (https://www.reflector.com/news/local/state-transportation-secretary-hopes-for-i-587-designation-in-2022/article_8aa5573e-1b30-55a2-8574-d9807bd9af25.html)
QuoteA state transportation department official gave a status update on the future of I-587 and other roadway projects during a virtual event sponsored by the Greenville-Pitt County Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.
Transportation Secretary J. Eric Boyette said $26 million has been spent on resurfacing, installing guardrails and widening highway shoulders to bring the stretch of U.S. 264 between Greenville and Zebulon up to interstate standards.
"We understand what it means for North Carolina, especially for Greenville and Pitt County," Boyette said. "This will be the first conversation to a major interstate.
"It's not only the interstate designation," he said. "It plays a role for improving the transportation infrastructure for us as a state, but there is job creation, access to health care and recreation. It's how we connect our state across all our county lines."
It's expected the Federal Highway Administration will rule on its interstate designation sometime in 2022, Boyette said.
Certified public accountant Benny Hardy asked what residents could do to ensure the interstate designation remains a priority.
The bulk of the physical work is complete, said Thomas Taft Jr., Division 2 representative on the state Board of Transportation.
"I think it's just a matter of keeping the pressure on the feds to not let this slip behind anymore," Taft said. "It's really more of a squeaky wheel scenario, not to overuse that."
That would be news to AASHTO which approved the I-587 designation based on getting word from the FHWA that it had already approved the route. Either the news hasn't gotten to the Secretary's office or, since they don't have plans to put up signs until 2022, they are using this as the excuse why it is not being signed immediately.
There is an obvious lack of communication within NCDOT. I found that out firsthand when I emailed them a question that asked what the timetable was for putting I-42 shields on the Goldsboro Bypass, and the guy who responded to me was under the impression that it was still "Future I-42". This was after former NCDOT Chief Engineer Tim Little told the US-70 Corridor Commission that FHWA had given it's approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42. I suspect this is another case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
WashuOtaku noted upthread that NCDOT is planning to seek approval to re-route US-264 onto it's old alignment between Saratoga and Greenville, so that also may be the reason for the delay in signing I-587.
If Boyette really is unaware that FHWA has already approved I-587 while other NCDOT employees were and didn't tell him, then that's just embarrassing.
I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January. The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it. Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)
I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.) The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 24, 2021, 04:12:38 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2021, 11:45:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 23, 2021, 05:15:23 PM
State transportation secretary hopes for I-587 designation in 2022 (https://www.reflector.com/news/local/state-transportation-secretary-hopes-for-i-587-designation-in-2022/article_8aa5573e-1b30-55a2-8574-d9807bd9af25.html)
QuoteA state transportation department official gave a status update on the future of I-587 and other roadway projects during a virtual event sponsored by the Greenville-Pitt County Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.
Transportation Secretary J. Eric Boyette said $26 million has been spent on resurfacing, installing guardrails and widening highway shoulders to bring the stretch of U.S. 264 between Greenville and Zebulon up to interstate standards.
"We understand what it means for North Carolina, especially for Greenville and Pitt County," Boyette said. "This will be the first conversation to a major interstate.
"It's not only the interstate designation," he said. "It plays a role for improving the transportation infrastructure for us as a state, but there is job creation, access to health care and recreation. It's how we connect our state across all our county lines."
It's expected the Federal Highway Administration will rule on its interstate designation sometime in 2022, Boyette said.
Certified public accountant Benny Hardy asked what residents could do to ensure the interstate designation remains a priority.
The bulk of the physical work is complete, said Thomas Taft Jr., Division 2 representative on the state Board of Transportation.
"I think it's just a matter of keeping the pressure on the feds to not let this slip behind anymore," Taft said. "It's really more of a squeaky wheel scenario, not to overuse that."
That would be news to AASHTO which approved the I-587 designation based on getting word from the FHWA that it had already approved the route. Either the news hasn't gotten to the Secretary's office or, since they don't have plans to put up signs until 2022, they are using this as the excuse why it is not being signed immediately.
There is an obvious lack of communication within NCDOT. I found that out firsthand when I emailed them a question that asked what the timetable was for putting I-42 shields on the Goldsboro Bypass, and the guy who responded to me was under the impression that it was still "Future I-42". This was after former NCDOT Chief Engineer Tim Little told the US-70 Corridor Commission that FHWA had given it's approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42. I suspect this is another case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
WashuOtaku noted upthread that NCDOT is planning to seek approval to re-route US-264 onto it's old alignment between Saratoga and Greenville, so that also may be the reason for the delay in signing I-587.
If Boyette really is unaware that FHWA has already approved I-587 while other NCDOT employees were and didn't tell him, then that's just embarrassing.
I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January. The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it. Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)
I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.) The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)
Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.
See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)
Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 05:01:49 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PM
I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January. The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it. Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)
I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.) The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)
Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.
See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)
Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?
I didn't doubt that you had heard somebody say "approved" . I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.
I didn't ask about the directionality of 587, I'll see what I can find on our server about plans.
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 05:01:49 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PM
I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January. The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it. Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)
I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.) The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)
Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.
See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)
Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?
I didn't doubt that you had heard somebody say "approved" . I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.
It's cool. No biggie.
QuoteI didn't ask about the directionality of 587, I'll see what I can find on our server about plans.
Sounds like a plan!
(Pun may or may not be intended...)
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 05:01:49 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PM
I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January. The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it. Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)
I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.) The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)
Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.
See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)
Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?
I didn't doubt that you had heard somebody say "approved" . I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.
It's cool. No biggie.
QuoteI didn't ask about the directionality of 587, I'll see what I can find on our server about plans.
Sounds like a plan!
(Pun may or may not be intended...)
And those plans say...
East-West.
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 05:01:49 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PM
I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January. The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it. Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)
I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.) The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)
Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.
See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)
Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?
I didn't doubt that you had heard somebody say "approved" . I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.
It's cool. No biggie.
QuoteI didn't ask about the directionality of 587, I'll see what I can find on our server about plans.
Sounds like a plan!
(Pun may or may not be intended...)
And those plans say...
East-West.
Source????!!!
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 05:01:49 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PM
I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January. The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it. Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)
I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.) The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)
Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.
See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)
Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?
I didn't doubt that you had heard somebody say "approved" . I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.
It's cool. No biggie.
QuoteI didn't ask about the directionality of 587, I'll see what I can find on our server about plans.
Sounds like a plan!
(Pun may or may not be intended...)
And those plans say...
East-West.
That's a welcome change! Thanks!
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 09, 2021, 12:41:39 AM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 05:01:49 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PM
I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January. The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it. Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)
I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.) The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)
Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.
See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)
Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?
I didn't doubt that you had heard somebody say "approved" . I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.
It's cool. No biggie.
QuoteI didn't ask about the directionality of 587, I'll see what I can find on our server about plans.
Sounds like a plan!
(Pun may or may not be intended...)
And those plans say...
East-West.
Source????!!!
I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.
Quote from: snowc on October 09, 2021, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 09, 2021, 12:41:39 AM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
And those plans say...
East-West.
Source????!!!
I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.
I looked at the signing plans on our server, as I indicated I would.
Quote from: jdunlop on October 09, 2021, 05:38:57 PM
Quote from: snowc on October 09, 2021, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 09, 2021, 12:41:39 AM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
And those plans say...
East-West.
Source????!!!
I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.
I looked at the signing plans on our server, as I indicated I would.
So it's still signed North/South?
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 09, 2021, 06:20:23 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 09, 2021, 05:38:57 PM
Quote from: snowc on October 09, 2021, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 09, 2021, 12:41:39 AM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
And those plans say...
East-West.
Source????!!!
I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.
I looked at the signing plans on our server, as I indicated I would.
So it's still signed North/South?
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 09, 2021, 06:23:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 09, 2021, 06:20:23 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 09, 2021, 05:38:57 PM
Quote from: snowc on October 09, 2021, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 09, 2021, 12:41:39 AM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
And those plans say...
East-West.
Source????!!!
I don't think there's a source, tolbs, so they may be sarcastic.
I looked at the signing plans on our server, as I indicated I would.
So it's still signed North/South?
It sounded like jdunlop said he was being sarcastic.
Quote from: LM117 on October 09, 2021, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 08, 2021, 05:01:49 PM
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PM
I-42 was just submitted to AASTHO. Approval anticipated in January. The message from the former chief engineer was likely that FHWA had no objections to the designation (the approve the designation) but officially hadn't approved it. Miswording in all likelihood by either the chief or the reporters (I'd bet on misinterpretation.)
I-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.) The US 264 designation has been submitted to AASHTO for approval, which would be pending the final approval of I-587 (if the application waited for the formal approval, the re-routing wouldn't take place for a year.)
Thanks for clearing that up. I know this isn't the I-42 thread, but here's where I got the info from regarding the Goldsboro Bypass.
See page 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)
Back to I-587, is NCDOT still planning on signing it North/South instead of East/West?
I didn’t doubt that you had heard somebody say “approved”. I just happened to ask the person handling the applications yesterday while discussing a different issue.
It's cool. No biggie.
QuoteI didn’t ask about the directionality of 587, I’ll see what I can find on our server about plans.
Sounds like a plan!
(Pun may or may not be intended...)
And those plans say...
East-West.
That's a welcome change! Thanks!
Are those plans tied to a specific I-587 sign contract or will they be added to another project's plans? Would the installing of new exit numbers be part of this project?
I-6035; I presume (without asking anybody involved) that it'll be let once the official approval by FHWA "Ëœis granted. The first part of 6035 was the resurfacing Nd shoulder improvements.
The exits will be renumbered. For example, the NC 42 exit will go from 41 to 20.
Quote from: jdunlop on October 10, 2021, 03:54:09 PM
I-6035; I presume (without asking anybody involved) that it'll be let once the official approval by FHWA "Ëœis granted. The first part of 6035 was the resurfacing Nd shoulder improvements.
The exits will be renumbered. For example, the NC 42 exit will go from 41 to 20.
So I-587 will take over the exit numbers and not I-795. That's great to hear.
Booyah!!! Exciting news! Now that leaves the section west of I-95 to Zebulon. :clap: :clap: :clap:
https://wcti12.com/news/local/us-264-in-eastern-north-carolina-earns-interstate-designation
Quote from: jdunlop on October 08, 2021, 02:31:38 PMI-587 was approved by AASHTO, who indicated that the Feds had approved it. However, FHWA has not formally approved it yet. (As the Secretary indicated, expected in 2022.)
Press release today from NCDOT announcing FHWA approval. I-587 shields will go up between I-95 and Greenville sometime next year.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-16-i-587-designation-approved.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-16-i-587-designation-approved.aspx)
It's such a beautiful moment when a highway graduates to become an interstate, I'm not crying, you're crying :-(
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^ I-587 between Greenville and I-95 has independent utility.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 19, 2021, 11:28:22 PM
^ I-587 between Greenville and I-95 has independent utility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 21, 2021, 06:07:02 PM
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.
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.
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.
It's better than what happened in NY with I-86, where there's the main segment west of US 220 and a short section east of Binghamton that was only designated because NYSDOT got tired of having to put back the sign covers, and will probably not connect in the foreseeable future, if ever.
Or I-74, which exists as two separate interstates because the portion connecting them will
never be built.
I-587 will also lead to a situation where there will be no satisfactory way to deal with I-795. Either it will have to have an otherwise pointless overlap (another no-no in my book) to meet its parent or it would be truncated and orphaned.
What's the point of even having a numbering system at all if it's disordered basically all the time because of stalled and cancelled projects? I like my route systems to be neat and tidy (along with everything else in life).
Quote from: vdeane on November 21, 2021, 07:54:09 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 21, 2021, 06:07:02 PM
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.
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.
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.
It's better than what happened in NY with I-86, where there's the main segment west of US 220 and a short section east of Binghamton that was only designated because NYSDOT got tired of having to put back the sign covers, and will probably not connect in the foreseeable future, if ever.
Or I-74, which exists as two separate interstates because the portion connecting them will never be built.
I-587 will also lead to a situation where there will be no satisfactory way to deal with I-795. Either it will have to have an otherwise pointless overlap (another no-no in my book) to meet its parent or it would be truncated and orphaned.
What's the point of even having a numbering system at all if it's disordered basically all the time because of stalled and cancelled projects? I like my route systems to be neat and tidy (along with everything else in life).
I don't love your position, but ultimately to fix 795 you could make it an X40 once it connects down to I 40.
There are always going to be gaps.
Parent-child gaps are a sign that the interstate network is growing–a good thing. Permanent ones should be avoided, sure, but to say that they should never exist is a bit over the top
Unfortunately, "temporary" often has a habit of becoming "indefinite" or even "permanent", especially when we're dealing with 50 years to complete an interstate (as is the norm these days). I would also think that the distinction would tend to lose meaning over such long timescales. If I'm Joe Public navigating around the country, I care about what exists now, maybe what will exist in the next ~5 years or so (maybe 10 if we're being generous), but not what will exist 50 years from now.
Maybe I'd feel differently if the gaps in the newly proposed interstates didn't tend to last as long as they do.
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2021, 12:42:13 PM
Unfortunately, "temporary" often has a habit of becoming "indefinite" or even "permanent", especially when we're dealing with 50 years to complete an interstate (as is the norm these days). I would also think that the distinction would tend to lose meaning over such long timescales. If I'm Joe Public navigating around the country, I care about what exists now, maybe what will exist in the next ~5 years or so (maybe 10 if we're being generous), but not what will exist 50 years from now.
Maybe I'd feel differently if the gaps in the newly proposed interstates didn't tend to last as long as they do.
I-49 and I-69 have some huge gaps that are probably going to persist for a long time, providing plenty of ammunition for your argument. In the case of I-587 I don't think we'll have to wait very long for the Zebulon-Wilson gap to be closed.
As for I-795, I assume there will be the overlap with I-587 with Wilson. Goldsboro wants its connection to I-95 just like Greenville does.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 22, 2021, 06:20:33 PMAs for I-795, I assume there will be the overlap with I-587 with Wilson. Goldsboro wants its connection to I-95 just like Greenville does.
Yep, the overlap is staying. Plus, I-795's extension to I-40 was specifically written into the FAST Act with the I-795 designation, so there's no way to change the number at this point. I think the number is just fine as it is anyway, given that it's purpose is to create a shortcut between I-95 and Wilmington and vice-versa.
Anybody has details of when the I-587 exit numbers and signage are supposed to go up like what month and everything?
The Wesley Church Rd exit sign is still missing here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6012698,-77.5626508,3a,47.6y,148h,83.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szmMI8DSp5mZZDRjaUp3e0A!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192).
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 01, 2022, 02:13:40 PM
Anybody has details of when the I-587 exit numbers and signage are supposed to go up like what month and everything?
The Wesley Church Rd exit sign is still missing here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6012698,-77.5626508,3a,47.6y,148h,83.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szmMI8DSp5mZZDRjaUp3e0A!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192).
I haven't heard anything. NCDOT was waiting for their application to move US 264 back to part of its original alignment from AASHTO before designing the new exit signs. Don't know if the AASHTO Committee met in the fall, yet approved the application. I am sure NCDOT will let the officials in Greenville know when the signs are about to be put up and that news will make it quickly to the local media.
I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.
When is I-587 in North Carolina going to be signposted? I know that NCDOT received approval, but is it happening soon?
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 11:45:54 AM
I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.
That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2022, 12:36:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 11:45:54 AM
I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.
That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.
Yes, it's up to interstate standards, but the condition that it's in warrants a resurfacing badly.
As seen in pages 13 and 14. US-264 will be relocated.
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=21357
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2022, 12:36:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 11:45:54 AM
I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.
That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.
Yes, it's up to interstate standards, but the condition that it's in warrants a resurfacing badly.
NCDOT may have been listening. They have added 3 pavement rehabilitation projects along US 264/Future I-587 in Wilson County as part of their January additions to the current STIP 2020-2029,* and they are to start this year (FY 2022). The first, HI-0006 is for 7 miles between I-795 and the Toisnot Swamp (an I-795 pavement rehab project, I-5818 is listed as under construction), the second, HI-0007 is for 8.3 miles between Toisnot Swamp and the Greene County line, the third, HI-0015 is for the 4.6 miles of US 264 in Wilson County west of I-95. The projects are listed on p. 99/435 in the new edition of the current STIP is available at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf)
*Perhaps due to Covid, NCDOT's next STIP will not be 2022-2031, the typical two-year interval, but 2024-2033. The Draft of which will be published this fall.
Quote from: bob7374 on February 09, 2022, 11:22:42 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2022, 12:36:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 11:45:54 AM
I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.
That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.
Yes, it's up to interstate standards, but the condition that it's in warrants a resurfacing badly.
NCDOT may have been listening. They have added 3 pavement rehabilitation projects along US 264/Future I-587 in Wilson County as part of their January additions to the current STIP 2020-2029,* and they are to start this year (FY 2022). The first, HI-0006 is for 7 miles between I-795 and the Toisnot Swamp (an I-795 pavement rehab project, I-5818 is already underway), the second, HI-0007 is for 8.3 miles between Toisnot Swamp and the Greene County line, the third, HI-0015 is for the 4.6 miles of US 264 in Wilson County west of I-95. The projects are listed on p. 99/435 in the new edition of the current STIP is available at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf)
*Perhaps due to Covid, NCDOT's next STIP will not be 2022-2031, the typical two-year interval, but 2024-2033. The Draft of which will be published this fall.
The "HI" (interstate maintenance) suffix in the project identification appears to be new. Typically the pavement rehabilitation projects have been lumped in with the other "I" (interstate) projects. "HE" (economic development) is a recent addition too. I wonder if this somehow bypasses the project prioritization process (if maintenance projects even had to go through that step)? NCDOT has indicated no new projects will be added to the STIP this update cycle and only projects in the current STIP will be considered and reprioritized for the next STIP. However, projects are added all the time, so I'm not sure how effective the STI "law" is anyway.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 09, 2022, 02:49:35 PM
As seen in pages 13 and 14. US-264 will be relocated.
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=21357
That does
not mean it's happening. That simply means that they support the application NCDOT
(may or may not have) submitted.
Quote from: froggie on February 10, 2022, 10:08:12 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 09, 2022, 02:49:35 PM
As seen in pages 13 and 14. US-264 will be relocated.
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=21357
That does not mean it's happening. That simply means that they support the application NCDOT (may or may not have) submitted.
It seems to me NCDOT should also change what would be the remaining US 264 ALT to US 264 Business for Greenville.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2022, 10:11:37 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 10, 2022, 10:08:12 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 09, 2022, 02:49:35 PM
As seen in pages 13 and 14. US-264 will be relocated.
https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=21357
That does not mean it's happening. That simply means that they support the application NCDOT (may or may not have) submitted.
It seems to me NCDOT should also change what would be the remaining US 264 ALT to US 264 Business for Greenville.
Yes, since it's only one city, US-264 ALT needs to be changed to US-264 business.
Quote from: bob7374 on February 09, 2022, 11:22:42 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2022, 12:36:13 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 11:45:54 AM
I just know US-264 in Wilson County needs resurfacing which will be done later this year before the I-587 signs go up I'm sure.
That section is already up to interstate standards. A resurfacing may be needed, but it is not necessary to be designated.
Yes, it's up to interstate standards, but the condition that it's in warrants a resurfacing badly.
NCDOT may have been listening. They have added 3 pavement rehabilitation projects along US 264/Future I-587 in Wilson County as part of their January additions to the current STIP 2020-2029,* and they are to start this year (FY 2022). The first, HI-0006 is for 7 miles between I-795 and the Toisnot Swamp (an I-795 pavement rehab project, I-5818 is already underway), the second, HI-0007 is for 8.3 miles between Toisnot Swamp and the Greene County line, the third, HI-0015 is for the 4.6 miles of US 264 in Wilson County west of I-95. The projects are listed on p. 99/435 in the new edition of the current STIP is available at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf)
*Perhaps due to Covid, NCDOT's next STIP will not be 2022-2031, the typical two-year interval, but 2024-2033. The Draft of which will be published this fall.
I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.
Google Maps has new Streetview images dated January 2022 of the 795/264 overlap, and it doesn't look bad to me. Based on November 2021 images, I-795 south of 264 doesn't look bad, either.
Quote from: LM117 on February 10, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.
That's OK. Everyone is confused because the upcoming numbering changes. But this is the section of I-795 concurrent with US-264, which will be concurrent with I-587 whenever NCDOT gets around to posting the new signage. Right now, NCDOT refers to that stretch as I-795 instead of US-264 because you-know-what. The adjacent section of I-795 heading southward to Goldsboro has indeed been repaved in recent years.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 10, 2022, 08:14:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 10, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.
That's OK. Everyone is confused because the upcoming numbering changes. But this is the section of I-795 concurrent with US-264, which will be concurrent with I-587 whenever NCDOT gets around to posting the new signage.
I'm aware of that. I just thought that the 795/264 overlap had been repaved recently as well, and based on it's appearance on Google Streetview from last month, it looks like that was the case. It just seems like a waste of money to repave the overlap when it was already done less than 5 years ago.
Quote from: LM117 on February 11, 2022, 12:34:54 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 10, 2022, 08:14:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 10, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.
That's OK. Everyone is confused because the upcoming numbering changes. But this is the section of I-795 concurrent with US-264, which will be concurrent with I-587 whenever NCDOT gets around to posting the new signage.
I'm aware of that. I just thought that the 795/264 overlap had been repaved recently as well, and based on it's appearance on Google Streetview from last month, it looks like that was the case. It just seems like a waste of money to repave the overlap when it was already done less than 5 years ago.
Meanwhile, in western North Carolina...
I-26 (https://goo.gl/maps/JRv57rbGERnxAtxA7)
I-40 (https://goo.gl/maps/7jA7VLwWYkRYarT49)
U.S. 74 (https://goo.gl/maps/Qnue6NQLhdjPHjHH6)
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on February 11, 2022, 08:30:08 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 11, 2022, 12:34:54 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 10, 2022, 08:14:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 10, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
I must be missing something here, because I thought for sure I-795 had already been repaved right before the pandemic hit.
That's OK. Everyone is confused because the upcoming numbering changes. But this is the section of I-795 concurrent with US-264, which will be concurrent with I-587 whenever NCDOT gets around to posting the new signage.
I'm aware of that. I just thought that the 795/264 overlap had been repaved recently as well, and based on it's appearance on Google Streetview from last month, it looks like that was the case. It just seems like a waste of money to repave the overlap when it was already done less than 5 years ago.
Meanwhile, in western North Carolina...
I-26 (https://goo.gl/maps/JRv57rbGERnxAtxA7)
I-40 (https://goo.gl/maps/7jA7VLwWYkRYarT49)
U.S. 74 (https://goo.gl/maps/Qnue6NQLhdjPHjHH6)
Looks about right. :meh:
As posted in the North Carolina thread, AASHTO's US Route Numbering Committee approvals from its Fall 2021 meeting have finally been published and include the removal of US 264 from what will become I-587 east of Wilson and its designating of current US 264 Alt. as US 264. NCDOT can now, if it hasn't already, finalize the signing plans, including new exit numbers for I-587, from I-95 to Greenville. Hopefully the project can be completed by the end of the year. The applications are at:
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2022/02/Final-Report-USRN-Application-Results-Fall-2021.pdf (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2022/02/Final-Report-USRN-Application-Results-Fall-2021.pdf)
If they have not released signing plans yet then I feel like they are trying to wait for the Zebulon to Wilson part to be upgraded to interstate standards so it can be signed I-587 altogether.
But that's going to require the part from Wendell to Zebulon to be upgraded to interstate standards (there is a rehabilitation project for 2024 but rehabilitation projects are not the same as upgrading a freeway to interstate standards), and there is no set date of when that will happen. NCDOT plans to widen that part to 6 lanes, (I think they should just widen it to 8 altogether since traffic will just rise because that project got delayed twice already) but there is no set date of when that will happen.
Shouldn't an interstate spur connect to its parent before it can get officially signed? Otherwise I feel like they are just double-crossing us.
And for that reason, I was expecting I-595 to be signed first before I-587 can takeover.....
^ I-587 is going to be signed between I-95 and Greenville in 2022.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 20, 2022, 08:11:56 PM
^ I-587 is going to be signed between I-95 and Greenville in 2022.
funny how they say signs will go up in early 2022 and yet nothing has been done as of right now. There is still no document outlining the signing plans and etc.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 20, 2022, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 20, 2022, 08:11:56 PM
^ I-587 is going to be signed between I-95 and Greenville in 2022.
funny how they say signs will go up in early 2022 and yet nothing has been done as of right now. There is still no document outlining the signing plans and etc.
Somebody's working on those plans, because NCDOT has promised several times to have the road signed this year.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 20, 2022, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 20, 2022, 08:11:56 PM
^ I-587 is going to be signed between I-95 and Greenville in 2022.
funny how they say signs will go up in early 2022 and yet nothing has been done as of right now. There is still no document outlining the signing plans and etc.
While I appreciate your enthusiasm for our state highway system, take a deep breath, have some patience, and not worry about it. It'll come.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 20, 2022, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 20, 2022, 08:11:56 PM
^ I-587 is going to be signed between I-95 and Greenville in 2022.
funny how they say signs will go up in early 2022 and yet nothing has been done as of right now. There is still no document outlining the signing plans and etc.
It's only February... there's still 10 months of the year left.
It will come eventually.
I wonder how long it will be before Interstate 87 and Interstate 587 connect with one another? I'd estimate at the earliest about 15 to 20 years from now.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 21, 2022, 03:57:17 PM
I wonder how long it will be before Interstate 87 and Interstate 587 connect with one another? I'd estimate at the earliest about 15 to 20 years from now.
Most likely. Plans to upgrade US-264 to interstate standards between Wilson and Zebulon are unfunded, same with widening US-64 (future I-87) to 6 lanes (should just widen it to 8 straight off the bat!) between Wendell and Zebulon.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 21, 2022, 03:57:17 PMI wonder how long it will be before Interstate 87 and Interstate 587 connect with one another? I'd estimate at the earliest about 15 to 20 years from now.
I can't see it being a high priority. 587's purpose (blue-and-red signs to Greenville) is done without it, and the expense and faff of upgrading the existing highway isn't worth it.
If they change the signs to sign Future-587 like they sign Future-26 in Asheville, then you know it's going to be a long long time before they upgrade it to Interstate standards!
I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before a while back, but according to former NCDOT Secretary Nick Tennyson, the biggest issue with the upgrades between Sims and Zebulon is that the overhead bridge clearances would need to be increased. Other than that, it should be a simple matter of widening the shoulders, as was the case in Greene and Pitt counties.
That said, I agree that the remaining upgrades won't be happening anytime soon. Greenville's top priority was having an interstate connection to I-95, which they now have. Having I-shields from Greenville to Raleigh was never mentioned when Greenville began it's interstate push 10 years ago.
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2022, 12:40:55 PM
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
Good news. A quick check of traffic cameras along the NC 11 Bypass shows that the overhead signs have not been updated as of yet. I'll continue to check and post an update when warranted.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2022, 12:40:55 PM
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
Is that the actual sign? Why is it marked east-west and why is it white?
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2022, 12:40:55 PM
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
Is that the actual sign? Why is it marked east-west and why is it white?
Probably because they removed the US 264 and slapped the interstate shield on there
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PMWhy is it marked east-west
Because it is an east-west interstate?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2022, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PMWhy is it marked east-west
Because it is an east-west interstate?
This might sound weird, but the signage was to be north-south.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2022, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PMWhy is it marked east-west
Because it is an east-west interstate?
This might sound weird, but the signage was to be north-south.
It's because of NCDOT's practice of signing its 3dis in the same cardinal directions as their parents. For example, I-540 is signed east west because that's how I-40 is signed. The only example before this was I-485 around Charlotte. But I'm glad NCDOT decided to go along with the east west numbering. I-87 already runs more east west.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 22, 2022, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2022, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PMWhy is it marked east-west
Because it is an east-west interstate?
This might sound weird, but the signage was to be north-south.
It's because of NCDOT's practice of signing its 3dis in the same cardinal directions as their parents. For example, I-540 is signed east west because that's how I-40 is signed. The only example before this was I-485 around Charlotte. But I'm glad NCDOT decided to go along with the east west numbering. I-87 already runs more east west.
That's because NCDOT mistakenly thought that there was a federal rule that a 3di MUST be signed in the same directions as the parent 2di, regardless of how the actual direction of the road runs. Problem with that is there is no such rule, and there are plenty of examples in other states where the 3di is signed with different directions than the parent.
Apparently, NCDOT finally realized that and changed the sign plans. Thank goodness common sense finally prevailed!
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2022, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PMWhy is it marked east-west
Because it is an east-west interstate?
This might sound weird, but the signage was to be north-south.
You are correct, it was originally to be north-south, but some months ago it was confirmed it was switched to properly be east-west.
Quote from: LM117 on June 22, 2022, 02:26:04 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 22, 2022, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2022, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PMWhy is it marked east-west
Because it is an east-west interstate?
This might sound weird, but the signage was to be north-south.
It's because of NCDOT's practice of signing its 3dis in the same cardinal directions as their parents. For example, I-540 is signed east west because that's how I-40 is signed. The only example before this was I-485 around Charlotte. But I'm glad NCDOT decided to go along with the east west numbering. I-87 already runs more east west.
That's because NCDOT mistakenly thought that there was a federal rule that a 3di MUST be signed in the same directions as the parent 2di, regardless of how the actual direction of the road runs. Problem with that is there is no such rule, and there are plenty of examples in other states where the 3di is signed with different directions than the parent.
Apparently, NCDOT finally realized that and changed the sign plans. Thank goodness common sense finally prevailed!
It doesn't help that most of NCDOT's 3di's happen to be aligned geographically with the direction their parent route is signed. I-587 may have gotten them to notice because of how obvious an example it is.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2022, 12:40:55 PM
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
Is that the actual sign? Why is it marked east-west and why is it white?
Not the best photo sadly, but I think it is good enough for you to get the point. Basically, this is a similar shield for I-83 with a white "END". I believe it was installed as a part of the I-83 construction so I believe it will be around for a while.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217275077509474&set=a.10216218268569911
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 22, 2022, 01:24:35 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2022, 12:40:55 PM
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
Is that the actual sign? Why is it marked east-west and why is it white?
Probably because they removed the US 264 and slapped the interstate shield on there
Does anyone know if they ever got the approval to move US 264 back on its old route?
Quote from: kendallhart808 on June 22, 2022, 08:19:23 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 22, 2022, 01:24:35 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2022, 12:40:55 PM
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
Is that the actual sign? Why is it marked east-west and why is it white?
Probably because they removed the US 264 and slapped the interstate shield on there
Does anyone know if they ever got the approval to move US 264 back on its old route?
Yeah, AASHTO approved it last fall.
Quote from: bob7374 on June 22, 2022, 12:49:13 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2022, 12:40:55 PM
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
Good news. A quick check of traffic cameras along the NC 11 Bypass shows that the overhead signs have not been updated as of yet. I'll continue to check and post an update when warranted.
That didn't take long... https://youtu.be/Z-fRhDI0_GE (https://youtu.be/Z-fRhDI0_GE)
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2022, 02:27:56 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2022, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PMWhy is it marked east-west
Because it is an east-west interstate?
This might sound weird, but the signage was to be north-south.
You are correct, it was originally to be north-south, but some months ago it was confirmed it was switched to properly be east-west.
And here's 100% proof that it is East/West with a completely new sign (a MM) from the following video at the 33s mark (it's very fast, only on screen for a split second).
https://www.witn.com/video/2022/06/23/ncdot-officials-unveil-interstate/
(https://i.imgur.com/kRPCedq.jpg)
No Interstate 587 markers have been posted along the US 264 freeway on Google Maps yet, although I'm sure it is only a matter of time before that changes. Heck, the few Interstate 42 markers along US 70 near Exit 370 are still posted on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3038616,-77.8141547,943m/data=!3m1!1e3, even though 42 has not been signposted yet in the field.
NCDOT has coverage of the I-587 sign unveiling in its weekly NCDOT Now report:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-24-this-week-ncdot-now.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-24-this-week-ncdot-now.aspx)
How about updating this now to reflect the new interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson,_North_Carolina
In due time roadman65, in due time.
Greenville newspaper article regarding signing of I-587 which indicates a slow timeline for sign updates due to 'supply change issues' for aluminum signs. It also quotes an NCDOT official saying "about 900 signs will be changed out intermittently at a cost of about $9 million." Does that number seem reasonable? 37 miles of 1/2 mile markers in each direction yields only about 150 signs and there are less than 20 exits needing new reassurance and trailblazer markers along with exit number changes between I-95 and Greenville. Perhaps this includes US 264 sign changes as well:
https://www.reflector.com/news/local/community-celebrates-signage-for-interstate-587/article_6ba29ba2-29cd-51dd-a31d-ecfff55cbf02.html (https://www.reflector.com/news/local/community-celebrates-signage-for-interstate-587/article_6ba29ba2-29cd-51dd-a31d-ecfff55cbf02.html)
$10,000 a sign seems about right. I know they are expensive. What grinds my gears is all these future I-74 signs that have been along the Wilmington to Charlotte corridor for 15-20 years now and by the time NCDOT gets the whole corridor upgraded, probably 2040, maybe 2035, but it will be time to replace those I-74 signs just as the I-74 goes from future to reality.
I think some of that money could go to get some lights along various rural BUT busy interchanges and replace some of these ugly chicken wire traffic lights with mast arms.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2022, 12:40:55 PM
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
This should please
tolbs17.
Also, it is great that NCDOT decided to post I-587 as East-West.
So should this be updated to remove the future from the thread title?
Quote from: ahj2000 on June 28, 2022, 10:30:12 AM
So should this be updated to remove the future from the thread title?
It's still a future Interstate from Zebulon to Wilson.
https://goo.gl/maps/FT843kuYLVTp6MBi8
Another Breezewood between interstates now as the lack of connection to I-795 south requires a use of US 301 South.
I would like to know now if the exit numbers will remain until NCDOT converts the rest of US 264 to standards, or not?
Quote from: roadman65 on June 28, 2022, 02:45:01 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/FT843kuYLVTp6MBi8
Another Breezewood between interstates now as the lack of connection to I-795 south requires a use of US 301 South.
Still not as bad as Breezewood in the sense that you don't have to use a surface route in order to remain on the same interstate, and US-301 doesn't have as much traffic as US-30 in Breezewood.
^ I don't understand the Breezewood reference every time there is a gap between connecting from one interstate to another. It's not the same situation.
I-70 at Breezewood is being forced to exit onto surface roads to remain on the same interstate.
In this case, I-587 and I-795 are continuous highways. You only exit when transferring from I-795 North to I-587 East and vice versa.
And this tiny stretch of 301 hardly resembles the fast food sprawl menagerie that is ironically called Breezewood. A flyover from 587E to 795S would see even less traffic than the absurd 85S to 40E flyover.
Edit: Yeah. What LM117 said.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2022, 05:20:00 PM
^ I don't understand the Breezewood reference every time there is a gap between connecting from one interstate to another. It's not the same situation.
I-70 at Breezewood is being forced to exit onto surface roads to remain on the same interstate.
In this case, I-587 and I-795 are continuous highways. You only exit when transferring from I-795 North to I-587 East and vice versa.
I'm talking Roadgeek terminology, not comparison. Any surface roadway between two freeways instead of direct connection in general is a Breezewood no matter what route number or how many fast foods it has or doesn't have.
587 west Wilson signed on 2 BGS's approaching from the south on Greenville Bypass. Remains 264 on overheads once you arrive at ramps. Nice surprise today.
Quote from: RoadPelican on June 26, 2022, 09:24:31 PM
$10,000 a sign seems about right. I know they are expensive. What grinds my gears is all these future I-74 signs that have been along the Wilmington to Charlotte corridor for 15-20 years now and by the time NCDOT gets the whole corridor upgraded, probably 2040, maybe 2035, but it will be time to replace those I-74 signs just as the I-74 goes from future to reality.
I think some of that money could go to get some lights along various rural BUT busy interchanges and replace some of these ugly chicken wire traffic lights with mast arms.
All I know is that those wineries that have the white signs with grapes that are built to official sign standards cost $55,000. I read that in NCDOT documents several years ago.
I know they must have engineering drawings with details of the footings, etc. and sight lines/ distances must be approved by an engineer and then the fabrication costs.
i don't know if that included one sign in each direction or if it was per sign.
The "FUTURE I-74" signs are for converying that info now. Yes, it's a shame that 20 years will pass before it's a reality, but they have to spread funds across the whole state with a thin, skim coat, lol.
I hate the wood sign posts they've implemented in the last few years. I hope that's a temporary practice.
California uses wood posts extensively for ground-mounted signs but I still don't like 'em.
Quote from: nerdom on July 01, 2022, 11:53:02 PM
587 west Wilson signed on 2 BGS's approaching from the south on Greenville Bypass. Remains 264 on overheads once you arrive at ramps. Nice surprise today.
I suspected as such. Don't think it's a coincidence that the traffic camera at the now I-587/NC 11 Bypass interchange has been turned away for overlooking the overhead signs at the NC 11 Bypass NB ramps ever since the announcement that I-587 was being signed. I suspect the overheads, as well as exit renumbering, are part of another contract that is to be let over the summer. Therefore only mile markers and ground mounted shield signs would be the ones currently installed.
Update - The NCDOT camera has been moved to once again show the overhead exit sign for I-587 East. The overhead, as indicated above, however, still has a US 264 shield.
Will US 264/existing-future Interstate 587 have to wait until Interstate 87 reaches the US 64/264 spilt, and 587 connects with that interchange before the exits along existing 264 are renumbered to reflect Interstate 587's mileage?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 06, 2022, 08:13:48 PM
Will US 264/existing-future Interstate 587 have to wait until Interstate 87 reaches the US 64/264 spilt, and 587 connects with that interchange before the exits along existing 264 are renumbered to reflect Interstate 587's mileage?
No. In fact, NCDOT has a contract to renumber all of the exits on US 264 to I-587's mileage as well as add the I-587 shields.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 06, 2022, 08:13:48 PM
Will US 264/existing-future Interstate 587 have to wait until Interstate 87 reaches the US 64/264 spilt, and 587 connects with that interchange before the exits along existing 264 are renumbered to reflect Interstate 587's mileage?
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 06, 2022, 09:14:35 PM
No. In fact, NCDOT has a contract to renumber all of the exits on US 264 to I-587's mileage as well as add the I-587 shields.
I can't find the contract information, but it appears that the signage contract related to renumbering the exits on I-587 will be limited to the posted section east of I-95. Presumably, those exits along the multiplex with I-795 will be renumbered with the new sequence for I-587 rather than I-795.
They've put up at least one I-587 shield along the I-795/US 264 section in Wilson, bringing about only the second 3di concurrency in the country, photo courtesy of Shaun White:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587i795us264sign7622sw2.jpg)
The contractors do know that interstates have blue directional banners?
It would be insane if it was that Shaun White, but I seriously doubt that.
What's with the white direction signs on the two Interstates? Shouldn't they be blue like Interstate directional shields usually are?
^271/480 is the only other one I can think of.
And there will be another 3di concurrency in North Carolina once NCDOT completes the "missing gap" from N Elm Street to US 29/I-785 in Greensboro.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 08, 2022, 12:34:59 AM
And there will be another 3di concurrency in North Carolina once NCDOT completes the "missing gap" from N Elm Street to US 29/I-785 in Greensboro.
It's already under construction, it will be complete within the next year or so.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2022, 11:37:54 AM
They've put up at least one I-587 shield along the I-795/US 264 section in Wilson, bringing about only the second 3di concurrency in the country, photo courtesy of Shaun White:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587i795us264sign7622sw2.jpg)
The contractors do know that interstates have blue directional banners?
Oof. That white banner/I-shield combo is fugly. :thumbdown:
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2022, 02:37:08 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 08, 2022, 12:34:59 AM
And there will be another 3di concurrency in North Carolina once NCDOT completes the "missing gap" from N Elm Street to US 29/I-785 in Greensboro.
It's already under construction, it will be complete within the next year or so.
The official completion date for the Greensboro Urban Loop is Spring 2023.
NCDOT awards contract to repair bridge on what is now I-587:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-13-pitt-county-bridge-contract-awarded-ncdot.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-13-pitt-county-bridge-contract-awarded-ncdot.aspx)
Still no 587 shields along the US 264 freeway between Wilson and Greenville on Google Maps. I (or somebody else) will keep all you posted on whether this changes. Stay tuned!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 13, 2022, 06:20:37 PM
Still no 587 shields along the US 264 freeway between Wilson and Greenville on Google Maps. I (or somebody else) will keep all you posted on whether this changes. Stay tuned!
They may be waiting until all of the signs have been changed, and according to an article posted upthread, aluminum shortage is still an issue, so it could be a while.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 22, 2022, 03:08:43 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 22, 2022, 01:13:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2022, 12:40:55 PM
I-587 is now posted:
https://www.witn.com/2022/06/22/section-roadway-becomes-interstate-new-signs-be-unveiled/
Thanks to Tracy Snead for contacting me with this information...
Is that the actual sign? Why is it marked east-west and why is it white?
Not the best photo sadly, but I think it is good enough for you to get the point. Basically, this is a similar shield for I-83 with a white "END". I believe it was installed as a part of the I-83 construction so I believe it will be around for a while.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217275077509474&set=a.10216218268569911
I added a second photo showing the left END sign for I-83 more clearly. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217384499764962&set=a.10216218268569911)
Quote from: bob7374 on June 26, 2022, 10:54:57 AM
Greenville newspaper article regarding signing of I-587 which indicates a slow timeline for sign updates due to 'supply change issues' for aluminum signs. It also quotes an NCDOT official saying "about 900 signs will be changed out intermittently at a cost of about $9 million." Does that number seem reasonable? 37 miles of 1/2 mile markers in each direction yields only about 150 signs and there are less than 20 exits needing new reassurance and trailblazer markers along with exit number changes between I-95 and Greenville. Perhaps this includes US 264 sign changes as well:
https://www.reflector.com/news/local/community-celebrates-signage-for-interstate-587/article_6ba29ba2-29cd-51dd-a31d-ecfff55cbf02.html (https://www.reflector.com/news/local/community-celebrates-signage-for-interstate-587/article_6ba29ba2-29cd-51dd-a31d-ecfff55cbf02.html)
NCDOT press release about the sign changes, including a new numbering system for the section between I-95 and Zebulon.
Also noted is that a contract to upgrade the rest of US-264 to interstate standards between I-95 and Zebulon will be awarded in 3 to 4 years.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx
Quote from: LM117 on July 27, 2022, 04:54:59 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 26, 2022, 10:54:57 AM
Greenville newspaper article regarding signing of I-587 which indicates a slow timeline for sign updates due to 'supply change issues' for aluminum signs. It also quotes an NCDOT official saying "about 900 signs will be changed out intermittently at a cost of about $9 million." Does that number seem reasonable? 37 miles of 1/2 mile markers in each direction yields only about 150 signs and there are less than 20 exits needing new reassurance and trailblazer markers along with exit number changes between I-95 and Greenville. Perhaps this includes US 264 sign changes as well:
https://www.reflector.com/news/local/community-celebrates-signage-for-interstate-587/article_6ba29ba2-29cd-51dd-a31d-ecfff55cbf02.html (https://www.reflector.com/news/local/community-celebrates-signage-for-interstate-587/article_6ba29ba2-29cd-51dd-a31d-ecfff55cbf02.html)
NCDOT press release about the sign changes, including a new numbering system for the section between I-95 and Zebulon.
Also noted is that a contract to upgrade the rest of US-264 to interstate standards between I-95 and Zebulon will be awarded in 3 to 4 years.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx
It might have been helpful to include the new exit numbers with the press release. I have an exit list with my best guesses at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html)
Will the US 264 mile markers be ones without a shield or with a I-587 shield covered up, for now.
Google maps still doesn't have I-587. For how quick they are on some changes, they sure are slow in this.
Quote from: LM117 on July 27, 2022, 04:54:59 PMAlso noted is that a contract to upgrade the rest of US-264 to interstate standards between I-95 and Zebulon will be awarded in 3 to 4 years.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx
Something occurred to me about this just now. Assuming NCDOT keeps this schedule, would this be the first time a 3di was completed and signed before the parent 2di was finished? :hmmm:
Quote from: LM117 on July 29, 2022, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: LM117 on July 27, 2022, 04:54:59 PMAlso noted is that a contract to upgrade the rest of US-264 to interstate standards between I-95 and Zebulon will be awarded in 3 to 4 years.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx
Something occurred to me about this just now. Assuming NCDOT keeps this schedule, would this be the first time a 3di was completed and signed before the parent 2di was finished? :hmmm:
I-369 comes to mind in the recent past. I-269 probably qualifies too.
It is a certainty that this dynamic existed during the early years before substantial completion of the system.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 29, 2022, 10:06:18 AM
I-369 comes to mind in the recent past.
I-369 currently only exists as a 3 mile route near Texarkana... the entire I-369 highway will be over 100 miles long once completed, stretching south to meet I-69 at Tenaha.
Google Maps Street View has updated images taken along I-587 West to June 2022 between Farmville and Wilson. I was able to take some screen grabs of the mile markers that had been placed by that time (unfortunately, it appears they traveled the route a few days before the I-587 shields started going up though, comparing images with earlier ones, they had already started taking down US 264 signs in Pitt and Greene Counties), such as:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signsgsv622b.jpg)
The remaining photos are at https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos)
Based on the images I made some corrections to my preliminary exit list, especially in the Wilson area.
Quote from: LM117 on July 29, 2022, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: LM117 on July 27, 2022, 04:54:59 PMAlso noted is that a contract to upgrade the rest of US-264 to interstate standards between I-95 and Zebulon will be awarded in 3 to 4 years.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx
Something occurred to me about this just now. Assuming NCDOT keeps this schedule, would this be the first time a 3di was completed and signed before the parent 2di was finished? :hmmm:
Not in the least. Every single x95 qualifies under this, for example.
Quote from: Alps on July 29, 2022, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 29, 2022, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: LM117 on July 27, 2022, 04:54:59 PMAlso noted is that a contract to upgrade the rest of US-264 to interstate standards between I-95 and Zebulon will be awarded in 3 to 4 years.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx
Something occurred to me about this just now. Assuming NCDOT keeps this schedule, would this be the first time a 3di was completed and signed before the parent 2di was finished? :hmmm:
Not in the least. Every single x95 qualifies under this, for example.
Lots of x70s too.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on July 29, 2022, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 29, 2022, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 29, 2022, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: LM117 on July 27, 2022, 04:54:59 PMAlso noted is that a contract to upgrade the rest of US-264 to interstate standards between I-95 and Zebulon will be awarded in 3 to 4 years.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx
Something occurred to me about this just now. Assuming NCDOT keeps this schedule, would this be the first time a 3di was completed and signed before the parent 2di was finished? :hmmm:
Not in the least. Every single x95 qualifies under this, for example.
Lots of x70s too.
And x40s and x90s, as well.
Quote from: ahj2000 on July 28, 2022, 08:28:09 PM
Google maps still doesn't have I-587. For how quick they are on some changes, they sure are slow in this.
Especially since I-885 is already in Google despite the east end connector being opened after I-587 was signed.
Good News! Interstate 587 is now marked on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6780375,-77.7093894,30049m/data=!3m1!1e3.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 04, 2022, 05:00:21 PM
Good News! Interstate 587 is now marked on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6780375,-77.7093894,30049m/data=!3m1!1e3.
Though they took US 264 off the freeway east of Wilson, they still have Alt US 264 signed between there and Greenville. A small step forward though.
I-587 is visible in Google Earth as well.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 09, 2022, 12:02:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 04, 2022, 05:00:21 PM
Good News! Interstate 587 is now marked on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6780375,-77.7093894,30049m/data=!3m1!1e3.
Though they took US 264 off the freeway east of Wilson, they still have Alt US 264 signed between there and Greenville. A small step forward though.
Noticed today that I-587 has now also appeared on NCDOT's own 'Real-Time Traffic' maps. (Too bad they don't include exit numbers.)
Is the US 264/NC 11 Bypass segment no longer planned to become part of Interstate 587? I believe that at one point, the segment from Exit 73 to Exit 80 was going to be included as part of 587.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 19, 2022, 02:12:31 PM
Is the US 264/NC 11 Bypass segment no longer planned to become part of Interstate 587? I believe that at one point, the segment from Exit 73 to Exit 80 was going to be included as part of 587.
No, it was never planned to become part of I-587.
However, it was part of a proposed new interstate between Kinston and Bethel, which was included in the Eastern NC Gateway Act that was introduced in Congress shortly before the 2016 elections. It obviously didn't get anywhere, and there's been no further talk of it since.
I've posted screen grabs from the updated (July and August) Google Maps Street View coverage of I-587, which includes this End I-587 sign (again using a US route white banner) just beyond the first Greenville Bypass exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signsgsv722c.jpg)
The rest can be found at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos)
Will the exit numbers on Interstate 587 be renumbered anytime soon? Or will the US 264 numbers remain until the 587 designation reaches US 64 (and future Interstate 87)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:37:13 PM
Will the exit numbers on Interstate 587 be renumbered anytime soon? Or will the US 264 numbers remain until the 587 designation reaches US 64 (and future Interstate 87)?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19189.msg2757943#msg2757943
Google Maps Street View has updated some of its images to late August 2022 showing some of the new exit numbers in the Wilson area. Here's a glimpse of the new numbers for the US 301 and I-795 exits heading east, though they forgot to removed the no longer needed letter C from the I-795 exit (also notice what is wrong with the US 301 numbers?):
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signsgsv822g.jpg)
Images also show the new I-587 mileage based exit numbers on US 264 East for the I-95 exit. It appears, however, that NCDOT is simply subtracting 20 from the US 264 exit numbers to get the new ones, the original exit was 38, since I-95 is at I-587 MM 19:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signsgsv822b.jpg)
A few other new exit number images at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos)
I wonder how much NC spent on signage to change this thing from all the designations they have given it.
Wikipedia has not been updated to reflect the new exit numbers on Interstate 587. Also, the 587 page states under the future banner that the DOT doesn't have a timeline to upgrade 264 between Zebulon and Wilson to Interstate Standards, although in the exit list, it says the upgrade to Interstate Standards for this segment will start in 2025 or 2026. Is this accurate?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2022, 02:07:12 PMAlso, the 587 page states under the future banner that the DOT doesn't have a timeline to upgrade 264 between Zebulon and Wilson to Interstate Standards, although in the exit list, it says the upgrade to Interstate Standards for this segment will start in 2025 or 2026. Is this accurate?
As it stands now, yes.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx)
QuoteUpgrading this 18-mile section to I-587 is scheduled to be awarded for construction in three to four years.
Google Maps Street View has added more August 2022 coverage of Future and current I-587. I have been able to capture new exit numbers from east:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signsgsv822n.jpg)
To west:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signsgsv822y.jpg)
The rest of the images are on my I-587 in NC webpage:
https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos)
My exit list has been updated accordingly:
https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on October 02, 2022, 03:27:30 PM
My exit list has been updated accordingly:
https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587exits.html)
Can confirm at least one more exit # for you from what you list as not confirmed:
US-264 Alt as Exit 16A/B: https://goo.gl/maps/6QBR3hTgrvtkvMxBA
No Old Exit Numbers?
I would figure that would be confusing of a sudden change. Even NJ on I-295 that was applied to old I-95 exits used both Old and New. Ditto in PA and when Florida did the change in early 2000s.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2022, 07:08:25 PM
No Old Exit Numbers?
I would figure that would be confusing of a sudden change. Even NJ on I-295 that was applied to old I-95 exits used both Old and New. Ditto in PA and when Florida did the change in early 2000s.
As far as I know, NCDOT has never been in the practice of putting up Old Exit number signs along its highways. They just put the numbers up, sometimes with publicity, sometimes not. I have not seen any publicity at all about the new I-587 numbers, that's why I've relied on Street View images to confirm the numbers posted on my exit list.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 12, 2022, 10:50:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2022, 07:08:25 PM
No Old Exit Numbers?
I would figure that would be confusing of a sudden change. Even NJ on I-295 that was applied to old I-95 exits used both Old and New. Ditto in PA and when Florida did the change in early 2000s.
As far as I know, NCDOT has never been in the practice of putting up Old Exit number signs along its highways. They just put the numbers up, sometimes with publicity, sometimes not. I have not seen any publicity at all about the new I-587 numbers, that's why I've relied on Street View images to confirm the numbers posted on my exit list.
(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/026/i-026-e-exit-054-1.jpg)
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2022, 07:08:25 PM
No Old Exit Numbers?
I would figure that would be confusing of a sudden change. Even NJ on I-295 that was applied to old I-95 exits used both Old and New. Ditto in PA and when Florida did the change in early 2000s.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 12, 2022, 10:50:57 PM
As far as I know, NCDOT has never been in the practice of putting up Old Exit number signs along its highways. They just put the numbers up, sometimes with publicity, sometimes not. I have not seen any publicity at all about the new I-587 numbers, that's why I've relied on Street View images to confirm the numbers posted on my exit list.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on October 13, 2022, 11:21:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/026/i-026-e-exit-054-1.jpg)
Nice find. I'm like
bob7374 and I've never seen them in North Carolina. (Until your post).
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2022, 02:38:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2022, 07:08:25 PM
No Old Exit Numbers?
I would figure that would be confusing of a sudden change. Even NJ on I-295 that was applied to old I-95 exits used both Old and New. Ditto in PA and when Florida did the change in early 2000s.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 12, 2022, 10:50:57 PM
As far as I know, NCDOT has never been in the practice of putting up Old Exit number signs along its highways. They just put the numbers up, sometimes with publicity, sometimes not. I have not seen any publicity at all about the new I-587 numbers, that's why I've relied on Street View images to confirm the numbers posted on my exit list.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on October 13, 2022, 11:21:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/026/i-026-e-exit-054-1.jpg)
Nice find. I'm like bob7374 and I've never seen them in North Carolina. (Until your post).
The difference, perhaps, being that the I-26 project involved renumbering exits on an existing interstate, whereas the 587 and 885 projects involve upgrading an existing roadway to interstate standards (thus creating a new interstate).
Could be totally off here, though.
^ Definitely a possibility. There is also the previously cited aluminum shortage factoring into the decision not to make throw-away signs.
There was a lot of paper and TV news coverage at the time regarding the completion of I-26 through Madison County and the exit numbers all increasing by 31. The "old exit" signs were around for about two years. There was also discussion regarding how much traffic would be brought by the new highway and if I-240 through Asheville could handle the volumes. Many couldn't believe it would be another 10 years before construction would start on the I-26 connector in 2013....
Quote from: BlueRidge on October 13, 2022, 06:20:42 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2022, 02:38:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2022, 07:08:25 PM
No Old Exit Numbers?
I would figure that would be confusing of a sudden change. Even NJ on I-295 that was applied to old I-95 exits used both Old and New. Ditto in PA and when Florida did the change in early 2000s.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 12, 2022, 10:50:57 PM
As far as I know, NCDOT has never been in the practice of putting up Old Exit number signs along its highways. They just put the numbers up, sometimes with publicity, sometimes not. I have not seen any publicity at all about the new I-587 numbers, that's why I've relied on Street View images to confirm the numbers posted on my exit list.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on October 13, 2022, 11:21:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/026/i-026-e-exit-054-1.jpg)
Nice find. I'm like bob7374 and I've never seen them in North Carolina. (Until your post).
The difference, perhaps, being that the I-26 project involved renumbering exits on an existing interstate, whereas the 587 and 885 projects involve upgrading an existing roadway to interstate standards (thus creating a new interstate).
Could be totally off here, though.
Maybe it's from when I-26 was extended into TN. That's my guess.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 14, 2022, 08:27:56 PM
Quote from: BlueRidge on October 13, 2022, 06:20:42 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2022, 02:38:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2022, 07:08:25 PM
No Old Exit Numbers?
I would figure that would be confusing of a sudden change. Even NJ on I-295 that was applied to old I-95 exits used both Old and New. Ditto in PA and when Florida did the change in early 2000s.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 12, 2022, 10:50:57 PM
As far as I know, NCDOT has never been in the practice of putting up Old Exit number signs along its highways. They just put the numbers up, sometimes with publicity, sometimes not. I have not seen any publicity at all about the new I-587 numbers, that's why I've relied on Street View images to confirm the numbers posted on my exit list.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on October 13, 2022, 11:21:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/026/i-026-e-exit-054-1.jpg)
Nice find. I'm like bob7374 and I've never seen them in North Carolina. (Until your post).
The difference, perhaps, being that the I-26 project involved renumbering exits on an existing interstate, whereas the 587 and 885 projects involve upgrading an existing roadway to interstate standards (thus creating a new interstate).
Could be totally off here, though.
Maybe it's from when I-26 was extended into TN. That's my guess.
You are correct.
I've posted photos of I-587's renumbered exit signage from I-95 to Greenville, including this update of a sign posted above, now without the unneeded suffix letter:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signs1022k.jpg)
on my New/Future I-587 website:
https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos)
More photos of the new exit numbering west of I-95 coming soon.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 26, 2022, 11:47:10 AM
I've posted photos of I-587's renumbered exit signage from I-95 to Greenville, including this update of a sign posted above, now without the unneeded suffix letter:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signs1022k.jpg)
Ugh. Too bad NCDOT didn't replace Kenly with Wilmington as a control city for I-795 while they were at it. Kenly as a control city makes zero sense there.
Reminds me of earlier efforts to replace "Benson" with "Wilmington" on I-40 in the Raleigh area.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 26, 2022, 05:53:09 PM
Reminds me of earlier efforts to replace "Benson" with "Wilmington" on I-40 in the Raleigh area.
At least I-40 goes to both places. In this case, anybody coming in on US-264 from points west of I-95 that wants to go to Kenly would simply hop on I-95 South, and having been through Lucama, I can honestly say there's nothing there that warrants a special 264/795/301 detour.
I-795's intended purpose is to serve as a shortcut to Wilmington, so why not sign it as such?
Quote from: LM117 on October 27, 2022, 08:41:26 AM
I-795's intended purpose is to serve as a shortcut to Wilmington, so why not sign it as such?
It does not go to Wilmington probably a strong reason. Heck, it does not even reconnect with another interstate
at this time.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 27, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
Quote from: LM117 on October 27, 2022, 08:41:26 AM
I-795's intended purpose is to serve as a shortcut to Wilmington, so why not sign it as such?
It does not go to Wilmington probably a strong reason.
Again...it's intended purpose is to act as a shortcut to Wilmington, which it does, via connection to US-117 in Goldsboro, which leads to I-40 in Faison. Wilmington is already used as a control city for I-795 South at the interchange with I-42/US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro. NCDOT isn't going through the trouble of extending I-795 just to boost economic development in Faison...
QuoteHeck, it does not even reconnect with another interstate at this time.
Officially, it does
at this time. It just hasn't been signed yet.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-03-16-i-42-coming-us-70-corridor.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-03-16-i-42-coming-us-70-corridor.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on October 27, 2022, 08:41:26 AM
I-795's intended purpose is to serve as a shortcut to Wilmington, so why not sign it as such?
Not when it was originally signed. The original US-117 relocation had two original purposes:
1. Providing a connection to the north for the Global TransPark in Kinston (which is not along I-795).
2. Providing a connection to the north for container traffic from the Port of North Carolina in Morehead City (which is also not along I-795).
Since all of it was [kinda] constructed to Interstate standards, NCDOT applied for the Interstate designation the next year. It probably surprised NCDOT when AASHTO approved the designation. I'm sure that it wasn't long after receiving the I-795 designation that the locals in Dudley started noticing an uptick in through truck traffic on US-117 between I-40 and Goldsboro. So yes, I-795 now is planned to be extended to I-40 and should get eventually get "Wilmington" as a control city. But the current BGS on I-95 and the BGS pull-throughs on I-795 are not large enough to accommodate both "Goldsboro" and "Wilmington" on the same signs. In proper North Carolina fashion, everyone will need to wait until the old signs are ready to be replaced (or I-795 is extended, whichever comes first).
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 27, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
Quote from: LM117 on October 27, 2022, 08:41:26 AM
I-795's intended purpose is to serve as a shortcut to Wilmington, so why not sign it as such?
It does not go to Wilmington probably a strong reason. Heck, it does not even reconnect with another interstate at this time.
In any case Kenly is a weird choice. Better to have Goldsboro by itself.
Quote from: LM117 on October 27, 2022, 08:41:26 AM
I-795's intended purpose is to serve as a shortcut to Wilmington, so why not sign it as such?
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 27, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
It does not go to Wilmington probably a strong reason. Heck, it does not even reconnect with another interstate at this time.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 27, 2022, 08:45:37 PM
In any case Kenly is a weird choice. Better to have Goldsboro by itself.
But this is indeed the Kenly exit off of I-587, because you don't want to take the less direct US-301. It is also the exit for I-795 with a Control City of Goldsboro.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 27, 2022, 10:10:29 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 27, 2022, 08:41:26 AM
I-795's intended purpose is to serve as a shortcut to Wilmington, so why not sign it as such?
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 27, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
It does not go to Wilmington probably a strong reason. Heck, it does not even reconnect with another interstate at this time.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 27, 2022, 08:45:37 PM
In any case Kenly is a weird choice. Better to have Goldsboro by itself.
But this is indeed the Kenly exit off of I-587, because you don't want to take the less direct US-301. It is also the exit for I-795 with a Control City of Goldsboro.
It should be on a supplemental sign then.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 27, 2022, 10:10:29 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 27, 2022, 08:41:26 AM
I-795's intended purpose is to serve as a shortcut to Wilmington, so why not sign it as such?
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 27, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
It does not go to Wilmington probably a strong reason. Heck, it does not even reconnect with another interstate at this time.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 27, 2022, 08:45:37 PM
In any case Kenly is a weird choice. Better to have Goldsboro by itself.
But this is indeed the Kenly exit off of I-587, because you don't want to take the less direct US-301. It is also the exit for I-795 with a Control City of Goldsboro.
Kenly is a weird choice because it is not on I-795 and at population 1491 it is not a major destination. If we need to have a small burg on the sign, Fremont has population 1196 and it actually is on I-795, halfway to Goldsboro.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 28, 2022, 06:28:44 PM
Kenly is a weird choice because it is not on I-795 and at population 1491 it is not a major destination. If we need to have a small burg on the sign, Fremont has population 1196 and it actually is on I-795, halfway to Goldsboro.
Let me restate my position a different way. Instead of Exit 43B being the Kenly exit on I-795, perhaps it should be changed to the Lucama exit (which is much closer). But it is not like through traffic to southbound US-301 using Exit 43 shouldn't have a destination whatsoever. Before I-795 was constructed, this exit (whatever exit number it might have had) was posted for Wilson and Kenly, which made more sense back then.
Westbound Exit 43 is marked for US-301 (to I-795) to Wilson and Kenly. But the opposing eastbound Exit 43B is marked for South US-301 with no destination, because you were supposed to use Exit 43C. You could also make an argument that you were supposed to get off of US-264 eastbound onto I-95 to get to Kenly (instead of staying on I-795/I-587), but then should NCDOT turn the I-95 southbound exit into the Kenly exit? The way it is marked right now, the entirety of all of offramps for Exit 43 get posted for both Wilson (northbound destination) and Kenly (southbound destination), plus you get the Control City of Goldsboro posted for I-795. (Which, by the way, is not shown on westbound Exit 43. Ouch!).
Sorry for the rant, but when you get lucky enough to end up with a shortcut on a new route, your DOT should be kind enough to sign it as such.
NCDOT awarded a contract to resurface I-587 in Wilson County between NC-58 and the Greene County line. Bridge preservation work is also included in the contract.
Work can begin next month, and is expected to be finished by summer 2024.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-04-i-587-wilson-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-04-i-587-wilson-county.aspx)
I've posted photos I took last month of the new I-587 milepost exit numbers placed along US 264 West between I-95 and US 64, starting with those for US 264 Alt.:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signs1022yyy.jpg)
The rest are at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#futsigns (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#futsigns)
The complete set of photos taken along I-587 east of I-95 is also available at:
https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut587.html#photos)
It appears NCDOT is getting around to adding I-587 shields to exits in Wilson on I-95. Screen captures of Google Maps Street View images taken in August show a new shield on the 1 mile advance (there was no 1/2 Mile) sign:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signsgsv823b.jpg)
and one on the exit sign on I-95 North:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signsgsv823a.jpg)
But no change on the C/D ramp signage:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i587signsgsv823c.jpg)
^ I was in Goldsboro and Wilson early last month, and there still wasn't any I-587 shields on the signs along I-795 northbound approaching I-587/US-264.